Goole & District 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

We assessed 5 quality statements for this key question. We looked for evidence that people were always treated with kindness, empathy, and compassion. We checked people’s privacy and dignity was respected, that they understood that they and their experience of how they were treated and supported mattered. We 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 and that workforce wellbeing was support.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

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.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

Patients told us their care was of a high standard, and staff treated them with compassion and kindness.

Staff told us they directed patients to other services when appropriate and provided support when required. Patients attending the service came from various specialties, and staff described how they referred patients to the wider hospital team where necessary.

Private side rooms were available to protect patients’ privacy and confidentiality. Staff and leaders described how they protected patients’ privacy and dignity. For example, by keeping clinic doors closed, ensuring patients were always clothed or covered, and seeking patient permission before carrying out any tasks.

Staff told us they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory, or abusive behaviour or attitudes toward patients without fear of consequences.

We observed staff interactions with patients and saw staff were compassionate, discreet, respectful, and responsive. They provided help, emotional support, and advice when patients needed it. Staff maintained the confidentiality of patient information.

Staff ensured drinks were available for patients throughout their visit.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Patients told us staff always provided help in a way they could understand.

Leaders told us the service could be individualised to patients. Clinics were not running at full capacity, which meant patients could spend more time with the doctor. Leaders explained this was particularly beneficial when patients received bad news.

One specialty provided an evening clinic to offer patients flexibility with their appointment times. Diagnostic imaging was available for the evening clinic. The department held no weekend clinics.

Staff used an electronic language service to support patients whose first language was not English, as well as patients requiring British Sign Language interpretation. We saw no patient information leaflets available in other languages within the department.

The clinic list informed staff of patients’ specific needs. However, staff could not review previous clinic letters because the trust was moving to an electronic, paperless record system. This meant staff could not always confirm what actions needed to be completed before the patient saw the consultant, such as the removal of a plaster cast in the fracture clinic. The department had produced their own process to prevent appointments having to be re-scheduled.

We saw several examples of staff meeting individual patient needs. We observed designated areas for wheelchair users and children. A chaplaincy service poster was displayed with contact details, although it did not include information specific to the Goole and District Hospital site.

We saw posters with information about local services and patients’ rights.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

Patients told us they were given information in a way they could understand. This meant they were empowered to make the right choices for themselves.

Staff offered emotional support to patients. They described how they supported patients who became upset due to clinic delays by keeping them updated and offering drinks. They told us they informed waiting patients if a delay exceeded 30 minutes. However, during our assessment two clinics ran late. We did not see staff informing patients of the delays. One patient approached the reception desk to complain, but this information was not passed onto the clinic staff.

Staff had enough time to speak with patients and answer any questions.

All clinics we observed had a chaperone in the clinic with the doctor. Posters were visible to tell patients they could ask for a chaperone.

Leaders told us about a cancer support group for patients. This was ran by the service where staff provided health promotion and support.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Patients told us staff responded in a way they could understand, explained procedures clearly, and answered any questions they had.

Staff and leaders described how they supported patients with dementia, neurodiversity, or learning disability needs. The service undertook paediatric clinics, staff explained how they supported children attending the service. For example, staff helped a parent who requested more suitable activities for children whilst awaiting their appointments.

Staff explained how they worked to understand the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social, and religious requirements. One example included providing access to a designated space for prayer.

The service had an emergency standard operating procedure which set out what staff should do if a patient deteriorated while on site. However, this document was due for review in March 2021 and had not been updated. This meant we could not ensure it reflected current legislation or operational practice.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

All staff were extremely positive about the support they received for their work and wellbeing from both managers and colleagues. Several staff described the team as “like a family” and told us they had worked in the service for many years. Staff said colleagues rarely left the department before they retired.

Staff told us they felt respected, supported, and valued. The service operated monthly and annual staff recognition awards, including “Compassion in Action” awards. Staff and leaders shared examples of occasions when team members from the service had been nominated. Staff told us the ward manager was very supportive, and they said they were proud of the service. The morning huddle was used to support the whole team and ensure effective communication.

Leaders told us they knew how to access the personnel department for support, although they rarely needed to do so. The hospital staff charter was displayed in the ward manager’s office, and staff described how their career development had been supported.

However, medical staff told us frequent travel between the Trust’s three hospital sites created challenges and impacted their time.

The trust’s 2024 NHS Outpatients staff survey results were all below the national average score. However, 3 of the categories were better than the 2023 results. An action plan was in place to improve the results.

Leaders we spoke with told us the service has a staff confidential suggestions box and used ‘you said, we did’. Leaders attended monthly team meetings, where they discussed staff wellbeing and encouraged staff to develop their own solutions to issues raised. Leaders held staff meetings monthly. We reviewed the agenda which included staff wellbeing.