Diana Princess of Wales Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating remains Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

We looked for evidence that people were always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We checked that people’s privacy and dignity was respected, that they understood that they and their experience of how they were treated and supported mattered. We also looked for evidence that every effort was made to take people’s wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Caring.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff were discreet and responsive when caring for patients. Staff took time to interact with patients and those close to them in a respectful and considerate way. We observed kind, caring interactions between patients and staff. Staff explained to patients what they were doing when providing care and treatment. Patients said staff treated them well and with kindness.

We reviewed that last 3 months of the Friends and Family Test (FFT) and saw that results for all three months were positive with an average of 73% scored with most responses being very good or good. The most recent urgent and emergency care survey reported that 97% of patients felt they had been treated with dignity and respect.

Staff and leaders acknowledged the difficulties in ensuring that dignified care was always upheld for patients and acknowledged the time other patients waited for treatment. Staff gave examples of how they understood and respected the individual needs of each patient and gave examples of how they understood and respected individual needs, including cultural, social and religious needs and how these related to care. Staff told us that working relationships within the emergency department were positive.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

We noted that staff could access interpretation services by telephone and could also access sign language interpreters. We saw that patient information leaflets were available in various formats and languages.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, how to complain and so on. We saw posters and leaflets available in all patient areas.

Patients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances. Staff were able to give examples of how differing needs were met.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People were supported to understand their rights, care and treatment by using different ways to communicate.

We saw examples of staff supporting patients to enable choice and participation in decision making regarding their care. We saw evidence of patient satisfaction reported in local patient feedback.

The most recent urgent and emergency care survey reported that 81% of patients felt they had been helped with their communication needs, this was better than the national average.

The evidence shows some shortfalls when demonstrating how they responded to patient needs.

We observed staff assessing and updating care records; however, completion of risk assessments was inconsistent. We did note that all risk assessments were completed in the 10 sets of medical records that we reviewed, however, the department assurance tool showed compliance over the previous six months ranged from 50% to 100%.

All patients we spoke with reported that staff were very attentive and assisted them when needed. We did not see any prolonged waits for call bells to be answered.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service demonstrated how they care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Staff within the department spoke highly of local leadership whilst acknowledging the difficulties and pressures faced.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service. We saw that a range of services were available that staff could self-refer and access.

Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported. We were given examples of how staff had been supported with moving into senior roles and also with advanced clinical roles.

The staff sickness for medical staffing was 3% and better than the national average of 6%. We did note that sickness levels for nursing staff were at 15%, but 6% was accounted as maternity leave.