King's Mill 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.

This key question has been rated 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.

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

Staff were discreet and responsive when caring for patients. Staff took the time to understand the needs of the patients and interact with patients and those close to them in a respectful and considerate way.

People were assured that information about them was treated confidentially, and they knew that staff respected their privacy. Staff made sure conversations were not overheard, all conversation were behind curtains round the bed space or closed doors. We observed interactions between patients and staff where staff ensured patients’ dignity was maintained.

We observed staff introducing themselves and informing patients of what they were going to do, such as carrying out observations.

We observed staff talking calmly to a patient with mental health symptoms on EAU and reassured other patients in the same bay. Staff were supportive to each other and offering help with the patient's behaviours.

Staff on EAU and the wards told us they would find a quite space to share difficult news with patient and relatives in a sensitive way and ensure they had time to ask questions.

Patients said staff treated them well and with kindness. We observed staff speaking politely and with respect to patients and relatives. One patient on the discharge lounge told us, ‘staff are simply wonderful they are so helpful’. Another patient on ward 51 told us, ‘staff are pleasant they do everything, nothing seems too much trouble, they listen to you’. A patient on ward 44 told us, ‘everyone is really helpful, they have explained everything to me, when I press the buzzer, they come really quickly and help with my pain’.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Independence, choice and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

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. We saw staff supporting patient to mobilise and making them comfortable. We saw staff in EAU reassuring a patient with mental health symptoms and giving them time to talk.

Patients and relatives told us they could speak with doctors and nurses and were aware of the plans for their care. We saw staff had arranged a family meeting to support a family whose relative was reaching the end of their life to discuss care, treatments and options.

Visiting hours for relatives were flexible for patients receiving end of life care, families could stay overnight when required.

Patients with learning disabilities, special characteristics and dementia could have carers and family members stay with them throughout their hospital admission. Staff on the ward told us they had access to reclining chairs for visitors to stay overnight if required.

We heard conversations with medical, nursing and physiotherapy staff about immediate changes to patients care and how these would be implemented.

Staff from the virtual ward told us that when they visit patient in their own homes, they would often refer patients to other services and charities that could offer support with cleaning, shopping and access to furniture to support their needs.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centered care.

Most staff reported a culture of kindness and respect between colleagues. Most staff told us they felt respected, listened too and able to raise concerns and suggestions to their direct line managers. Some staff felt senior leaders in the organisation did not listen or support their wellbeing. They were not always involved in decisions about working environments and changes. One ward manager told us they felt micromanaged and were not always listened too when raising concerns.

Staff morale was mixed, staff on the medical wards and EAU told us they felt supported by their immediate leaders and senior managers. They could raise concerns and were listened to. Staff told us they had good peer support, and positive working relations with physiotherapy staff and medical staff. Staff felt supported by the matrons who visited the wards daily. During the ward handover staff discussed how everyone was feeling about the tasks allocated and workload. We saw staff supporting each other, offering help and discussing how they were feeling.

However, staff morale was low on SDEC. Staff felt they had not been involved in decisions taken to move the SDEC and were unsure of any reviews or potential moves back to the emergency department environment. We raised this with senior leaders at the time of our inspection. Following our inspection leaders told us they had met with staff and would ensure they were involved and kept up to date with decisions.

Staff said they could provide high standards of care and treatment. Staff told us they were able to attend the face to face training or complete this online. We spoke with student nurses and newly qualified nurses who told us staff were supportive of their training and learning needs. Training days were organised multiple times a year in focused relevant areas. Leaders told us they did not organise mandatory training during winter months due to increase in capacity to prevent cancellation of training days and felt this had worked well this winter.

Staff told us they had an annual appraisal and could raise any issues or learning needs or opportunities with their line manager. In the last 12 months, 88% of staff working in the medical division had received an appraisal and 92% of medical staff had completed an appraisal. There were a variety of online learning platforms that staff could use to develop their skills and experience to enhance their development.

Staff survey results showed mostly positive feedback. The response rate was 63%. Staff rated morale at 6.31 out of 10 and engagement at 7.13 out of 10. Just over 63% felt the trust supported their health and wellbeing. Most staff, 89% felt their work made a difference to patients. With 90% felt trusted to do their job. The survey results were discussed at divisional and board meetings. Key areas to improve included retaining staff, making sure they have the right equipment, and celebrating staff achievements.

A monthly divisional newsletter was available. Managers recognised staff for their achievements such as completing courses and winning awards. Managers held events where staff were presented with certificates and badges to recognise services. Staff told us they appreciated being recognised for their achievements.

The trust had a Working Together Strategy 2025-26 to ensure all staff felt well informed and supported. This included staff survey, exit interviews, staff well being and enabled staff to present any projects.