Northampton 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

We looked for evidence that people were treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We checked that people’s privacy and dignity was respected

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment we did not rate as we only looked at specific aspects in response to the Section 29a Warning Notice (WN). The rating for caring has remained as requires improvement.

We assessed 1 quality statement and found improvements had been made in line with the WN. The service had made changes to the environment to improve privacy and dignity for patients. We found staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion.

However, whilst improvements had been made, managers recognised the department required further work to ensure these improvements were maintained, particularly through winter where demand would increase.

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 treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion. The service made changes in the environment to maintain patients’ privacy and dignity. Corridor care had been significantly reduced.

During our previous assessment, we were not assured patients had their privacy and dignity respected in all areas of the department when they received care, treatment, and bad news. Communication in the waiting rooms, corridors, and seating areas was not private and could be overheard. Eight out of 13 (62%) patients did not feel they had been treated with dignity or respect. During this assessment we found some improvements had been made, however, the service was restricted with the layout of the building to fully support patients’ privacy and dignity.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. Staff worked hard to maintain patients’ privacy and dignity. Six out of 7 (88%) patients we spoke to considered their privacy and dignity had been maintained whilst in the department. This was an improvement from our previous assessment. One patient waiting in a rapid flow escalation bed did not feel comfortable due to lack of privacy but told us they were always taken to a private area for assessment and examinations. Staff told us the closure of corridor-based treatment escalation areas, had the biggest impact on improving privacy and dignity.

Patients were streamed to the most suitable place in the department based on their acuity assessment score. Staff undertaking this assessment role had received training and they made sure patients were streamed to a location where their privacy and dignity could be best maintained as well as ensuring they were safe. For example, they ensured patients requiring support with personal care were placed in a cubicle or areas with facilities to manage this.

Waiting room 1 had been refurbished into a seated treatment room. There were less chairs with more space in between them to provide more privacy when undertaking observations and administering treatment. Three private rooms had been identified following our previous assessment for patient consultations, examinations and to receive outcomes of results or diagnosis. Patients we spoke to in this area confirmed they were taken into the assessment rooms for private conversations and examinations. Privacy screens were available for patients should they need them.

The service had minimised the use of temporary escalation areas and there was no corridor care in place. There were 3 rapid flow beds being used at the time of our assessment for patients waiting for a bed on a base ward. These patients were provided with privacy screens whilst they waited to be transferred to a ward.

Following our assessment, we were assured the requirements of the Section 29A WN in relation to privacy and dignity had been met. Managers recognised there was still work to do to fully embed these improvements overtime and ensure they were consistently applied through periods of high demand.

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.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.