Macclesfield District General 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 has remained good.

People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect, and staff demonstrated empathy and compassion. Care was tailored to individual needs with reasonable adjustments, communication aids and interpretation services. However, independence and choice were not always promoted, with gaps in consent understanding and Mental Capacity Act compliance. We saw staff respond promptly to immediate needs and provide emotional support, and workforce wellbeing was prioritised through initiatives like the Professional Nurse Advocate service, with low turnover and positive staff feedback.

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.

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.

People told us that “they couldn’t fault the staff” and they had been “lovely” and “caring”.

In the inpatient surveys for April to June 2025, 91% of respondents stated that they were treated with dignity and respect during their time in hospital and 96% of respondents stated that the overall care they received was ‘excellent and good’ whilst 5% rated it ‘fair.’

Staff understood and respected the personal, cultural, social and religious needs of patients and how they may relate to care needs.

Confidential records were stored securely.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

Patients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances. We saw multiple menus for various diets for swallowing abilities, allergy free and gluten free. However, people told us that these were still limited in options.

On 1 ward we saw a poster showing the direction of Mecca for Muslims wishing to perform their salat.

We saw various communication aids for patients who required adaptive communication.

Staff had access to interpretation and translation services that also offered a document translation service. Braille and easy read documentation could also be requested.

Staff used a reasonable adjustment care plan to identify risks to patients in terms of communication, hygiene and medicines and other adjustments they could put in place to mitigate these.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People's rights were not consistently upheld. Staff demonstrated limited understanding of the principles underpinning the Mental Capacity Act, and we found that the legal framework for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) had not always been appropriately followed. This has been included in further detail in the consent to care and treatment section of the report.

Not all staff had completed training in relation to consent or learning disabilities.

However, we observed an activity coordinator on ward 9 delivering sessions for patients and saw some wards that had developed library cupboards with books, puzzles and other activities for patients to use, and people gave positive feedback about these.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People told us that they mostly got their pain relief when they needed it and staff responded to their discomfort.

We observed that staff answered call bells quickly, and we saw staff interacted with patients who were agitated and confused in a calm and caring manner.

In the inpatient surveys for April to June 2025, 83% of respondents stated that staff cared for them in a way that met their specific and individual needs. 76% of respondents stated that they got emotional support from staff if they needed it.

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.

Staff told us they felt positive and proud about working for the service and their team.

The nursing staff turnover rate for medical care was on average 4% between April to June 2025. Medical staff turnover for respiratory and gastroenterology had been 0% for the same period.

Sickness rates for medical ward nursing staff were on average 5.5% between April to June 2025.

The trust had implemented a Professional Nurse Advocate (PNA) Service in 2024 that provided health and wellbeing support for staff across the trust. This had received positive feedback from staff, with 85% of staff that had used the service and responded to the survey saying that it had positively impacted their health and wellbeing.