King's Mill Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. Patients knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. Patients received fair and equal care and treatment.  

Patients received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. Patients were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care. 

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

The evidence showed an outstanding level of care. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, always in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. 

The service placed patients and those important to them at the centre of care. Staff took time to understand what mattered to each person and used this information to plan and deliver care that reflected their individual needs, preferences, values and goals. We observed staff providing compassionate, personalised care that responded to patients’ physical, emotional, social and spiritual needs. 

Staff developed and regularly reviewed personalised care plans to ensure they reflected patients’ changing circumstances and wishes. They involved patients in decisions about their care and treatment wherever possible and supported them to understand their diagnosis, treatment options and future care choices. Staff encouraged open discussions and took time to answer questions, helping patients make informed decisions about their care. 

Staff supported patients and families to discuss future care preferences, including preferred place of care and preferred place of death. They handled these conversations sensitively, documented patients’ wishes clearly and shared information appropriately across teams to support continuity of care and ensure decisions reflected what was important to the individual. 

Staff adapted care to meet the needs of people with additional vulnerabilities or protected characteristics. They made reasonable adjustments for patients living with dementia, learning disabilities, autistic patients, patients with mental health conditions, physical disabilities and sensory impairments. Staff tailored communication and support to help patients remain involved in decisions about their care. 

The service promoted meaningful involvement from families, carers and advocates. Staff worked in partnership with those important to patients, with consent, and recognised the important role they played in supporting wellbeing and decision-making. End-of-life care patients benefited from unrestricted visiting arrangements, which enabled families and loved ones to spend valuable time together. 

Staff used initiatives to enhance personalised end-of-life care. The Butterfly Scheme helped staff identify patients approaching the end of life and reminded them to provide additional sensitivity and support to patients and families. Memory and comfort trolleys provided keepsakes and resources to help families create meaningful memories and receive comfort during bereavement. 

Patients, relatives and carers consistently told us staff listened to them, respected their wishes and adapted care to meet their individual needs. Throughout our inspection, we saw a service that was flexible, responsive and committed to ensuring people received care that reflected what mattered most to them.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. 

The service understood the diverse needs of the population it served and provided care that was joined up and coordinated. 

Care was well integrated with health, social care, and voluntary sector partners. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the needs of people with frailty, long-term conditions and those experiencing social deprivation. 

The service coordinated care across teams and partner organisations, so people experienced a clear pathway through their patient and end of life care journey. A multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach was evident on all wards we visited, this meant staff worked together to offer continuity of treatment and promote positive patient outcomes.  

The electronic palliative care coordination system meant that patients records could be accessed by other healthcare professionals in the community to ensure as far as possible, the patient had an individualised care plan on discharge from the hospital  

Bereavement support was offered to families following a patient’s death. This included emotional support, signposting and, where appropriate, dedicated support for children and young people. Bereavement packs were given and offered to families and friends that contained useful information and guidance.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. 

The service mostly provided patients and those important to them with clear, accurate and timely information about their care, treatment and support options. Staff explained information in a sensitive and compassionate way and took time to ensure patients and families understood their diagnosis, treatment plans and future care choices. Staff discussed the risks and benefits of different options and encouraged patients and families to ask questions. 

Staff tailored conversations about prognosis and future care to patients’ individual wishes and readiness to receive information. They handled these discussions sensitively and adjusted the amount and timing of information to meet patients’ needs and preferences. Staff provided clear information about discharge arrangements, ongoing support and who to contact for advice following discharge. Where appropriate, staff signposted patients and families to community services to ensure continued support. 

The service met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard. Staff assessed patients’ communication needs and provided information in formats that people could understand.  

Staff had access to interpretation and translation services, including British Sign Language interpreters, and used communication aids when required to support patients to participate in decisions about their care. Information about hospital passports was readily available, and staff told us they used and respected these documents to help understand and meet patients’ individual needs. However, not all information leaflets were available in languages other than English. 

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. 

The service encouraged patients, relatives and carers to share feedback about their experiences and used this information to improve care. Patients and families had access to information about how to raise concerns or make a complaint through ward-based information, patient leaflets and the trust’s website. 

Staff understood the trust’s complaints process and knew how to respond to concerns and escalate complaints when necessary. The patient experience team (PET) managed all formal complaints, and the trust acknowledged complaints in line with national standards. Staff told us they received feedback following complaint investigations and used the learning to improve practice. 

Managers investigated complaints, identified themes and shared learning with staff through governance processes. We reviewed complaint responses and saw evidence that managers recognised patients' experiences, addressed concerns openly and identified actions to improve services. General trust wide learning included improving documentation, strengthening communication and providing refresher training to support good practice. 

Trust data showed that between April 2025 and March 2026 there were nine complaints relating to end-of-life care, containing 29 individual issues. One issue was upheld and related to communication. Leaders shared the learning from this complaint through safety and governance meetings to reinforce the importance of clear, timely and compassionate communication with patients and families. The trust had previously supported patients and loved ones to complete a combined end of life care experience/ bereavement feedback survey. However, this was on hold during 2026, as the trust was using the NACEL survey questionnaire to gather feedback.  

At the time of our inspection, all complaints were being managed within expected timescales, and the service had no delays in responding to complainants. Staff demonstrated a positive attitude towards feedback and understood the importance of listening to patients and families to improve the quality of care provided.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed  

The service promoted equality, diversity and inclusion and worked to ensure patients could access care based on clinical need. Staff told us that providing high-quality end-of-life care was a priority and demonstrated a commitment to ensuring people received equitable access to support, regardless of their background, circumstances or protected characteristics. 

The service took account of patients’ cultural, religious and spiritual needs. The hospital provided a dedicated multi-faith facility, including separate male and female prayer areas, washing facilities and resources to support different faith groups. Staff displayed information about a range of religious festivals and had access to faith leaders from a variety of communities. Chaplaincy services were available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and could arrange timely support from community faith representatives when required. 

Staff respected and supported patients’ individual beliefs, relationships and personal choices. They demonstrated an understanding of the diverse needs of patients, including those from the lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and queer, plus (LGBTQ+) community, and ensured care reflected what was important to each individual.  

The service supported patients whose first language was not English and those with communication needs. Staff had access to interpretation and translation services, including British Sign Language interpreters, and knew how to access these when required. Staff also used alternative communication methods to support patients and families to understand information and participate in decisions about care. 

The service made reasonable adjustments to meet the needs of people with disabilities and long-term conditions. All hospital areas were wheelchair accessible, and lifts, wheelchairs and staff support were available to help people navigate the site. The service had access to bariatric equipment, including beds for patients with higher weight requirements. Wards incorporated dementia-friendly design features, including clear signage and flooring designed to reduce confusion and support mobility. 

The trust had a dementia strategy and specialist dementia support services to improve the experience of people living with dementia. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the needs of patients with dementia and used personalised approaches to support communication, independence and wellbeing. 

The service actively monitored accessibility and equity through initiatives such as Martha’s Rule. Staff supported patients and families to raise concerns or request a clinical review and ensured translation and communication support was available for those who needed it. Leaders told us they monitored the use of the service, including demographic information, to identify and address any potential inequalities. 

There were no exclusions that prevented patients from accessing end-of-life care services. Staff worked flexibly to meet individual needs and remove barriers to care. We saw examples of staff making reasonable adjustments and responding creatively to support patients and families from a wide range of cultural, religious and social backgrounds. 

Staff felt respected, supported and valued and demonstrated inclusive attitudes in their daily work. We observed positive and respectful interactions between staff of all roles and grades. Staff promoted equality and diversity in practice and consistently delivered care that recognised and respected people’s individual needs, preferences and circumstances. 

The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support, and treatment in response to this. 

The service promoted equality and worked to ensure patients received care and treatment based on their individual needs, without discrimination. Systems, processes and policies supported equitable access to care and ensured staff considered patients’ protected characteristics when planning and delivering treatment. 

Staff demonstrated an understanding of equality, diversity and inclusion and acted to ensure patients received personalised care that reflected their needs and preferences. Patients told us staff understood what was important to them and took account of their individual circumstances when providing care and support. 

The service took a proactive approach to identifying and addressing potential inequalities in patient experience and outcomes. Staff sought feedback from patients, relatives and carers and used this information to understand how services could better meet the needs of different groups of people. Information about how to provide feedback was readily available, and staff recognised the value of both positive and negative feedback in driving improvement. We saw that the trust sought to gather data about inclusion health groups (people who are likely to experience extreme social exclusion) such as homeless people, Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller communities and people within the criminal justice system. For example, an audit into adult deaths within 48 hours of arrival to the emergency department at King's Mill Hospital, compiled in 2025, considered if patients were within an inclusion health group. This audit did not identify any patients within the audit criteria for these social groups. This could indicate either no patients from this group passed away at this location’s ED within 48 hours of arrival in the time period being reviewed, or that recording of people who are part of an inclusion health group needed improvement. 

The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. 

The service supported patients and those important to them to plan for the future in a timely, personalised and compassionate way. Staff encouraged open and honest discussions about future care, helping patients make informed decisions about their treatment, support and end-of-life wishes. Care planning reflected patients’ values, preferences and what mattered most to them. 

Staff discussed prognosis, treatment options and changes in patients’ conditions sensitively and at a pace appropriate to the individual. Patients and families told us they felt able to ask questions and were given the time and support needed to consider their options and participate in decision-making. 

Staff reviewed and updated care plans as patients’ needs changed. They involved patients and families in decisions about care and treatment wherever possible and clearly documented discussions about future planning, treatment options and changes to care. Records showed medical and specialist staff contributed to these discussions to ensure patients received coordinated and informed support. 

Staff supported patients and families to understand when treatment goals changed and reassured them that care would continue to focus on comfort, dignity and effective symptom management. Treatment escalation plans and Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were reviewed regularly, discussed with patients or those important to them, and documented clearly in patient records. 

The service used recognised end-of-life care tools and approaches to support advance care planning and personalised care in the last days of life. Staff used the Butterfly Scheme to identify patients approaching the end of life and ensure they and their families received additional support, communication and consideration. 

The end of life care service monitored how many patients passed away in their preferred place of death. The service was actively working in alliance with community partners to improve the number of people who were supported to die in their preferred place for example at home, in a hospice or at hospital.  

Staff also supported patients and families to consider organ donation where the patients’ medical condition allowed this. Clinical teams worked closely with the Specialist Nurse for Organ Donation (SNOD) service to ensure discussions were managed sensitively by appropriately trained specialists and reflected the wishes of patients and their families.