Royal Eye Infirmary

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 the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. We checked that people’s privacy and dignity was respected, that they understood 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 is the first assessment for this service. 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 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.

During the assessment of the service, we observed staff treating people with kindness compassion and dignity. Staff spoke with people in a kind and caring way. We observed staff building positive relationships with people during appointments. Staff adapted how they spoke to people to make them feel comfortable.

People using the service told us that staff treated them with kindness. During our assessment a person told us, “Staff were lovely, they have been good as gold to me”, another said “The care has been very, very, good”.

Staff told us treating people with kindness and dignity was important. They said they could raise concerns about poor care without fear of consequences.

During the assessment we saw that doors to consultation and treatment rooms were kept closed during appointments to protect people’s privacy and dignity.

Feedback collected by the service included comments like, “Wonderful service, excellent staff. Ever grateful for the brilliant NHS”,

Feedback from system partners reported that staff were both helpful and pleasant.

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.

During the assessment we observed staff treating people as individuals. We saw staff clearly explaining in a way people could understand, what was going to happen next. People using the service told us they understood their care and treatment.

Staff received training in equality and diversity to support people as individuals. Staff could access interpreters.

The location did not have spiritual support onsite. However, the trust’s main hospital was a short distance away and had pastoral and spiritual support.

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.

During our assessment, people we spoke with told us they were involved in care decisions. This included difficult conversations relating to care and treatment. People told us they felt they were able to ask staff questions regarding their care and treatment, and staff took time to answer any questions they had.

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.

During our assessment we observed staff escorting people around the service throughout the patient journey. We saw staff providing comfort and support to people using the service. During our assessment we saw staff supporting people. We saw staff offering to push wheelchairs and aid people move in the department.

Feedback collected by the service showed that over 82% of people using the service felt their experience was either good or very good. People using the service told us that staff met their needs. During our assessment, a person told us “Some of the staff have been amazing”.

The service had parking facilities. However, people said that the cost of parking had to be estimated as this was pre-paid. They said this was challenging as they did not know how long appointments would take.

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-centered care.

During our inspection staff told us they were working at maximum capacity, and the service was very busy. However, they felt supported to do their jobs and felt valued. Staff had access to the wellbeing support provided through the trust.

The service had policies and procedures to support staff’s well-being. The service identified trends in staff absence. Managers told us that they had identified a high level of absence due to injury from performing a repetitive job. They said they were reviewing job roles to add more variety and reduce injuries.

Staff appraisals included career development conversations. Records showed that staff were given the opportunity to discuss development opportunities and career progression. Staff said that appraisals helped them to do their jobs.

The service had up-to-date policies and processes to support staff with incidents of violence and aggression. This included how to deal with people who had been ‘red carded’ (excludes patients from treatment because of violent or aggression to staff). Staff received training to deal with violence and aggression. Staff told us this helped them to de-escalate situations.

Senior leaders told us they always wanted to improve staff wellbeing. Staff could be supported through the trust’s in-house occupational health and well-being department.