Royal Oldham 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 rated caring as good. We assessed 4 quality statements.

People were treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. Their privacy and dignity were respected. People were treated as individuals and made sure their care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences. People’s needs, views and wishes were listened to and understood. The wellbeing of staff was promoted, and they were supported and enabled to deliver person centred care.

However, some patients believed that confidentiality and dignity was not always maintained and that patients living with dementia did not always have their communication needs met. Some patients did not have all their needs met at the right time when wards were full.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Patients felt they were treated with kindness, compassion and dignity in their day-to-day care and support. Almost all patients and relatives or carers we spoke with told us staff treated them with kindness and compassion. Examples included staff providing bad news in an empathic way, providing reassurance and being attentive to patients’ needs. A patient told us ‘nothing is ever too much for staff’ and another patient told us staff were ‘very kind and caring.’ However, a few respondents felt that night staff were less compassionate, and that staff did not always treat patients with dementia appropriately.’

Patients felt staff listened to them and communicated with them in a way they could understand with a patient expressing how staff were ‘very polite and always listened. Patients felt staff understood their wishes, preferences, personal histories and backgrounds.

The division provided information from family and friends survey data between July 2024 and August 2024 which showed 69% of the respondents strongly agreed and 23% agreed staff treated patients with kindness, compassion and dignity.

The division had regular audits completed by the patient experience team which led to observe, listen and act reports. Over 90% of respondents agreed staff were friendly and treated them with kindness and compassion and over 90% felt they were treated with dignity and respect.

Some patients told us they had concerns about confidentiality. This was specific to specific wards where they felt staff could try harder to ensure that confidential information was discussed more quietly or privately.

Staff understood and respected the personal, cultural, social and religious needs of patients and how they may relate to care needs.

Most staff told us despite the wards being short staffed that patients continued to receive kind and compassionate care, and this was a priority over paper-based tasks. However, some staff told us patients were not treated as favourably by temporary staff.

Staff told us there was a culture of kindness between colleagues from other organisations.

The mental health liaison service staff reported staff from the division treated patients with kindness and respect.

The integrated care board stated professional respect is evident at interagency meetings and through any further correspondence between parties.

The ambulance trust reported no issues with the division regarding kindness, compassion or dignity.

One of the care homes which contacted the CQC with information explained how they were confident patients were treated with kindness, compassion and dignity. However, another care home stated there had been occasions when staff had ‘lacked professionalism and empathy’ towards some of their residents who were admitted to the hospital.

Overall, we observed kind and compassionate care being provided by staff. For example, we saw staff speaking with patients in a polite way, staff supporting patients who required assistance to use the bathroom and generally offering reassurance.

Staff responded to patients’ needs quickly and efficiently. We witnessed, whilst on the GMU, a nurse supporting a patient with additional needs. They were able to deescalate a challenging situation quickly.

There were some concerns raised regarding the CFM in relation to privacy and dignity concerns. Information on CFM is reported under the safe systems, pathways and transitions and governance, management and sustainability quality statements.

Patients felt they were treated as individuals and that staff considered any protected characteristics they had. Patients told us their individual needs and preferences were understood and reflected in their care, treatment and support. They explained their personal, cultural, social and religious needs were understood and met. For example, a patient with a disability told us how staff had considered their disability thoroughly when discussing, planning or providing care. Another patient told us staff supported them to move beds to be next to a window to help them get fresh air when they felt nauseous.

Some patients and their families and/or carers felt staff did not always meet the communication needs of those with dementia. Some patients, who were on the same bay as others with advanced dementia, told us staff did not communicate any differently with those patients and did not validate their feelings as they would have expected them to.

Staff were knowledgeable about how they would adapt care and treatment to ensure they considered patients’ personal, cultural, social and religious needs. They provided examples of times they worked hard with discharge facilitators to support patients to travel to their preferred place of death when they were receiving end-of life-care.

Staff told us they endeavoured to implement the principles of ‘John’s Campaign’ . Relatives and/or carers who were advocates were able to remain with patients suffering from dementia throughout their time in hospital.

Staff told us the division allows relatives and/or carers to stay overnight when a patient is on end-of life care.

Staff understood and applied the policy on meeting the information and communication needs of patients with a communication need, disability or sensory impairment. They told us the support available included translation services, access to interpreters and access to electronic devices for patients to type into.

We observed multiple examples of patients being treated as individuals and staff considering relevant protected characteristics.

On the medicine round we observed a consultant and patient in conversation about the patient’s treatment plan. The consultant ensured they spoke with the patient at length, explained any complicated aspects of their treatment plan and provided them the opportunity to ask questions.

We observed one staff member provide care to a transgender patient. We saw they used the patient’s preferred pronouns in conversation and within their records. We saw another member of staff use their knowledge of an alcohol dependent patient’s triggers to defuse a challenging situation.

A wellbeing box with a focus on patients with dementia was accessible on ward F6 which provided pencils, pens, fidget mitts and twiddle muffs.

However, staff were not always able to accommodate all needs at the right time. We saw one end-of-life patient with her family who did not have access to a side room. Another patient told us they felt uncomfortable that the patient may pass away in front of them.

Staff had access to the learning disabilities and the dementia teams who provided support and training to staff.

Patients who were deaf or did not speak English had access to British Sign Language (BSL) interpreters and translation services.

The service aimed to provide side rooms to patients on end-of-life care.

Processes were in place to ensure staff could easily identify patients who required support to eat, for example these patients were given their food on a red tray.

The service ensured there was a range of meal choices to enable patients to choose meals in line with their preferences and/ or religious or cultural needs.

The GMU had outdoor areas which patients could access. Other wards such as the AMU had quiet areas for patients with dementia and autism.

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.

Most patients we spoke with told us staff listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. They said staff responded quickly to patients needs to prevent discomfort, concern or distress.

Patients told us when they requested immediate support such as pain relief, staff were swift in their response and felt comfortable staff had the skills to de-escalate situations if required.

A patient told us they had witnessed another patient in their bay needing urgent support and was impressed by how quickly staff attended and supported them.

Staff understood the importance of identifying patients’ needs, views and wishes and aimed to prioritise these. Staff told us they tried to meet the immediate needs of all patients but that staff challenges, such as the shortage of HCA’s, made this difficult.

Staff told us that the patient experience team completed audits about how quickly they responded to patients’ call bells. We reviewed the audit data which showed call bells were responded to in a timely way.

Staff told us patients’ needs, views and wishes were a priority. For example, staff said that relatives were able to stay over with patients on the AMU and some of the wards in certain circumstances, such as when a patient was receiving end-of-life care or for those requiring additional support due to conditions such as dementia.

We observed many examples of staff being alert to patients needs and offering immediate intervention such as nursing staff responding with care and support when a service user was upset.

All patient records which we reviewed had up to date pain charts in place which had been checked regularly and signed and dated by a named nurse.

The division carried out nursing assessment and accreditation system audits for each of the wards. The nursing accreditation and assessment system audits were scored as red, amber or green and corresponded to a compliance score. At the time of the assessment, for pain management, 87.5% scored green and 12.5% scored amber which showed good compliance with management of patients’ pain.

Staff told us they did not always take regular breaks and worked longer hours than expected due to the pressures on them to complete tasks with a greater demand and a limited workforce.

Most staff told us they were supported if they were struggling at work, and some referred to being supported by ward managers when they were experiencing difficulties in their private lives including mental health issues. However, some staff, mainly from wards which were not performing as well as others, did not always have a sense of belonging and did not think they contributed to decision making.

Most staff felt valued by their ward managers and their colleagues. Some wards had an employee of the month award for staff who had gone beyond their normal duties.

Staff from particular ethnic backgrounds and faiths told us the division had engaged with them in open conversations about concerns they had regarding the recent riots in which communities were being targeted. The division supported these groups of staff emotionally by having regular meetings and by arranging transport to and from their place of work.

Staff were aware they could access counselling and other psychiatric support via the trust’s ‘SCARF’ programme which stood for ‘support’, ‘care’, ‘assist’, ‘recognise’ and ‘family.’

Ward managers were aware of the importance of workforce wellbeing and said they were glad this had remained a main topic of conversation following the COVID-19 pandemic.

Staff across the trust had access to the SCARF health and wellbeing programme which provided advice and support for environmental, financial, physical, psychological, social and spiritual wellbeing. Resources such as self-help guides and classes for mindfulness and relaxation are examples of how SCARF supported staff to stay well.

The trust had a range of employment policies to support colleagues at work, which included managing stress at work, dignity at work, and supporting colleagues with disabilities and/or long-term health conditions with personalised workplace adjustments policies.

The trust had a people and culture council who met monthly. The council’s aims were to improve the staff survey response rate, and to focus on improving the 3 areas where the trust had improved the least. These areas were having a voice that counts, compassion and inclusivity, and staff engagement. The meeting minutes from May 2024 highlighted key activities which included promoting the freedom to speak up guardians across divisions, running perfect staffing weeks, planning listening events, and continuing to promote the flexible working policy.

A pulse survey from quarter 2 of 2024-2025 highlighted 40% of staff felt the hospital was proactively supporting their health and wellbeing which was less than the trusts average of 54%. Despite this, 63% of staff felt their immediate manager took a positive interest in their health and wellbeing.