Fairfield 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

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

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.

Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity and took account of their individual needs and choices. The service had systems in place to support staff wellbeing, safe working and emotional support. However, we found some instances where staff did not always respond to people’s needs promptly.

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.

Staff we spoke with were caring and compassionate. They told us they treated people with respect. Most of the patients and relatives we spoke with told us staff were kind and treated them with kindness. They told us they thought staff were friendly and caring and gave us positive feedback about ways in which staff showed them respect and ensured that their dignity was maintained.

We observed staff providing care in a respectful manner across the urgent and emergency services. Staff spoke with patients in a friendly and polite way. We saw that most patients were treated with dignity, compassion and empathy.

We saw that curtains in the assessment cubicles were drawn when providing care and treatment and we saw nursing and medical staff speak with patients discreetly to maintain confidentiality.

Corridor care patients were not provided with privacy screens. However, we saw these patients could be transferred to a dedicated cubicle to deliver personal care in order to maintain their privacy and dignity.

Stakeholders and partners told us their interactions with staff across the urgent and emergency care services had been positive. They told us the staff acted and treated them with kindness, empathy, and compassion. They told us they felt the staff were respectful, non-judgmental, and mindful of the distress and vulnerability often experienced by patients in acute hospital settings.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and took into account people’s needs and preferences.

Staff told us patient’s needs and preferences were assessed on admission to the urgent and emergency care services and they respected their wishes where possible.

Most patients we spoke with were positive about the way staff treated them. They told us staff treated them as individuals and took their needs and preferences into account when providing care and treatment. They told us staff respected their cultural needs.

We saw staff were respectful and supportive when they spoke with patients and their relatives.

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.

Staff told us they listened to patients and promoted independence as much as possible. They respected people’s rights to make choices about their care. We observed staff speaking with patients clearly in a way they could understand.

Most patients told us they were kept informed and staff had explained the next steps in their care and treatment. However, patients and relatives also told us they were not always given clear information about waiting times whilst they were in the emergency department.

Patients and their relatives spoke positively about being offered hot and cold beverages while they waited for treatment. Patients who had experienced extended waiting were also offered meals and snacks, with options available for specific requirements, such as vegetarian, halal and kosher meals.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs straight away or act to minimise discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff told us they routinely assessed and monitored patients in order to provide them with support when they needed it.

Most patients told us they felt comfortable asking for help when they needed it. They told us staff supported their emotional needs and they were able to voice any concerns or anxieties relating to their care and treatment.

We observed positive interactions between staff and patients and saw staff attended to patients in a timely manner when called. However, we saw 1 instance where staff did not immediately respond to a patient who displayed cognitive impairment symptoms and had tried to stand up whilst on a corridor care trolley.

We also received mixed feedback from one patient who told us staff had not provided prompt assistance with their personal care needs during the night whilst they were in the emergency department. However, this patient told us they eventually received appropriate support.

All staff we spoke to including external agencies such as Police and ambulance crews told us that they felt patients attending the emergency department in mental health crisis were safe and cared for.

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 could access employee support programmes for organisational development, counselling, health and wellbeing. Staff spoke positively about the SCARF (support, care, assist, recognise and family) programme for support. Staff participated in supervision and debriefs to support their emotional well-being. They could access occupational health and psychologist support. Staff with prolonged sickness absence were supported through meetings with their line managers and human resources (HR) teams. The service had initiatives to support flexible shift adjustments. The service reported Schwartz rounds had commenced in October 2023 to support staff wellbeing. Schwartz Rounds are structured, monthly forums for healthcare staff from all disciplines to discuss the emotional and social impacts of their work

Staff spoke positively about the wider support they received from the trust including access to occupational health, well-being and human resources support. They told us they understood how to access employee support programmes and that their peers and line managers were supportive.