King's College 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 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant children and young people felt well-supported, cared for and were treated with dignity and respect.

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 service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.

Feedback from children and young people we spoke with was largely positive and they commented that “everyone is very nice”. Most of the parents or carers we spoke with felt staff listened to them and were satisfied with the care their child had received. They told us the staff treated them well and with kindness. Most parents in outpatients commented positively on their attendances. However, some people told us staff did not always demonstrate good patient service as staff were on their personal phones and there could often be delays. Between January and March 2025 friends and family test results showed a recommendation rate typically of 100%, with the lowest recommendation rate of 75% in February 2025. The service informed us patient records were accessible on mobile devices and staff in the service primarily communicate using mobile devices for work-related communication and accessing records securely.

There was a strong, visible person-centred culture. All staff we spoke with were motivated to deliver care that is kind and promotes people’s dignity. We saw staff explaining things to children and young people and families in a way they could understand. Staff understood and respected the personal, cultural, social and religious needs of people using the services.

Staff were discreet and responsive when caring for children, young people and their families. We observed staff locked patient records when they moved away from computer screens to maintain confidentiality.

Staff undertook training on breaking bad news and demonstrated empathy when having difficult conversations. There was bereavement support available for families when a patient died. Including providing age-appropriate books for siblings to help them understand what had happened.

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

The service took account of children and young people’s individual needs and preferences, and these were reflected in plans for their care. Staff treated people as individuals, considering any relevant protected equality characteristics. People’s personal, cultural, social and religious needs were understood and met. Patients were given a choice of food and drink to meet their cultural and religious preferences We saw there were religious, cultural and vegan meal options in addition to an allergy aware menu.

People’s communication needs were met to enable them to engage in their care and treatment and to support them to maximise their experience and outcomes. The service had systems such as translation services to support communication and choice, in addition to communication aids for patients with speech or hearing difficulties. Staff told us children and young people with complex needs may have hospital passports to help them understand their individual needs and care for them in accordance with this.

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

Staff made sure children, young people and their families understood their care and treatment. We observed staff with a caring approach; they ensured they spoke to both the child and their family in ways that they could understand and in a way that was reassuring.

Children and young people had access to their friends and family while they were using the service. We saw signage informing families and carers they were welcome and encouraged to be present all day. Parents were encouraged to be involved in the care of their babies and children as much as they felt able to. We observed children and young people were also involved in their own care. There was a range of appropriate equipment to support and maximise people’s independence and outcomes from care and treatment.

We saw evidence of the service providing choice in the treatment of respiratory care patients. The service applied for funding via the NHS Individual Funding Request process for access to a novel medication for a child who had previously required multiple intensive care admissions. Since starting the treatment, the child had not required any further hospital admissions.

Children, young people and their parents or carers could access parts of their health record electronically. For children and young people with long term conditions there was a ready, set, go programme to help them acquire the knowledge and skills to manage their condition.

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.

Children and young people's needs, views, wishes, and comfort were a priority and staff quickly anticipated these to avoid any preventable discomfort concern or distress. Patient records detailed people’s additional needs and staff made reasonable adjustments to help patients access services.

Children and young people could always be accompanied by a parent or carer including overnight. Accommodation was also available for families to stay close by. There was dedicated parent accommodation nearby called Ronald McDonald House.

There was a hospital school, and teachers provided educational support to children and young people who might miss a significant period of schooling. There was a school room where children could attend, or teaching resources were taken to the wards. This ensured education continued for those requiring an extended length of hospital stay.

The service had access to a small provision of mental health liaison and specialist mental health support which were available to support children and young people in all areas of the children’s service. The psychology service was available for children and young people with medical conditions who had significant psychological needs because of their condition. However, there was a waiting list for outpatient psychology input due to vacancies in staffing.

The service enabled staff to deliver person-centred care but did not always promote the wellbeing of their staff.

Staff were positive about their work and told us they enjoyed their job. There was a varied view from staff we spoke to who sometimes did not feel valued at work. Most staff we spoke to told us they felt valued by their immediate teams but did not always feel valued by senior leadership. Some staff told us managers were not always approachable and supportive. Staff told us they felt comfortable raising concerns, however some staff said they did not always feel leaders took their views and experiences seriously.

The provider tried to recognise and meet the wellbeing needs of staff, and we saw sessions were included on induction schedules for newly qualified staff during induction provided by the wellbeing team. We observed space was an issue throughout the service and there were limited dedicated staff rest areas. Although, staff told us about a ‘zen room’ in the Thomas Cook Children’s Critical Care Centre which was available to promote staff wellbeing.

Staff had health and wellbeing offers, including staff networks. There were suitable arrangements to ensure staff had access to appropriate supervision for their role. Staff told us there were staff wellbeing meetings with psychologist input on PICU. This was also available for staff to join virtually to allow all members of the team to join.

Staff told us they had access to panic buttons if they required assistance from the security team. There were events organised to build staff morale including away days, summer events and appreciation days.

The health and wellbeing data from the national 2024 NHS Staff Survey showed 42.7% of staff agreed the organisation took positive action on health and well-being, moderately lower than the trust score of 45.5%. The number of staff in child health who agreed the organisation was committed to helping staff balance their work and home life was significantly lower (32.4%) than the trust result of 40.5%. The actions the service had identified to address the 2024 staff survey did not identify any target dates for the outlined actions.