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.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect, and staff demonstrated compassion and sensitivity even in challenging environments. Patients felt involved in decisions, with staff using interpreters and communication aids to meet diverse needs. Emotional support was consistently provided, and staff responded promptly to discomfort or distress. Cultural and dietary needs were considered, though menu options were limited. Workforce wellbeing was prioritised through support services and low turnover rates, enabling staff to deliver person-centred 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 they felt reassured by the staff and were confident in their care. Friends and family survey results from May 2025 indicated 81% had a very good or good experience and 12.2% had a poor or very poor experience.

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.

Although privacy and dignity were difficult to maintain for patients receiving care and treatment in the temporary escalation area, the patients we spoke with did not voice any concerns and acknowledged the difficult circumstances staff were working in.

Staff and leaders acknowledged the difficulties in ensuring that dignified care was always upheld for patients in temporary escalation areas and acknowledged the extended time other patients waited for treatment. Staff gave examples of how they understood and respected the individual needs of each patient. Staff told us that working relationships within the emergency department were positive.

Chaplaincy staff and facilities were available to support patients, carers, and staff in response to cultural, religious, or unexpected needs such as a death. A relatives room was available for private conversations.

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.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of diverse patient needs and made effective use of face to face or telephone interpretation services. This benefitted individuals whose first language was not English or those requiring British Sign Language. Staff talked to patients in a way they could understand, using communication aids where necessary.

We observed staff speaking and explaining things to children in a child friendly way. We also observed staff interacting exceptionally sensitively to a young patient whilst explaining what they were going to do.

We saw that a patient with mental health needs was treated with respect kindness and compassion. When this patient was upset, they were spoken to in the appropriate calming voice and provided with reassurance by both nursing and security staff.

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

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.

Children and families told us they were involved in their care decisions. This included difficult conversations relating to care and treatment. Staff took time to provide information. Adults, children and families told us they felt they were able to ask nurses and doctors questions regarding their care and treatment, and staff took time to answer any questions they had.

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.

Staff provided emotional support to patients, families, and carers to minimise their distress. They understood patients' personal, cultural, and religious needs. Staff gave patients and those close to them help, emotional support and advice when they needed it. All contact between staff and patients was conducted professionally, sensitively and in a way which respected confidentiality and the emotional wellbeing of both patients and their relatives and carers.

Staff we spoke with understood the emotional and social impact that a person’s care, treatment, or condition had on their wellbeing and on those close to them. Staff supported and involved patients, families, and carers to understand their condition and make decisions about their care and treatment. Staff talked to patients in a way they could understand, using communication aids where necessary.

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

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

Staff mostly introduced themselves and established a good rapport with their patients. Staff at all levels of seniority across all professions demonstrated caring and attentive attitudes towards patients.

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. Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service.

The nursing staff turnover rate for UEC was on average 2.6% between April to June 2025. Medical staff turnover for the service had been 0% for the same period.

Sickness rates for UEC nursing staff were on average 5.7% between April to June 2025.

Staff told us they received supervision, and clinical incident reviews and debriefs following a difficult event.

The trust had implemented a Professional Nurse Advocate 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.