Doncaster Royal 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

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

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

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 always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion and we respect their privacy and dignity. We treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence mostly showed a good standard. The service treated people with kindness and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness.

Staff interacted with children, young people and their families in a respectful, compassionate and responsive manner. They provided emotional support, reassurance and advice when needed, and we observed staff maintaining privacy and dignity during care delivery.

Feedback from children, young people and their families was generally positive. People told us they were treated well and staff behaved appropriately. Staff also said they felt able to challenge and report any inappropriate, discriminatory or disrespectful behaviour without fear of repercussion, which supported a culture of openness and respect.

Staff supported children and families to understand and manage their care and treatment. They demonstrated an awareness of individual needs, including cultural, social and religious requirements, and adjusted care accordingly. Where possible, children were cared for in age-appropriate environments. Confidentiality was maintained, and staff were mindful of protecting personal information.

However, feedback from the 2024/25 patient experience survey identified some inconsistencies in staff communication and empathy. Concerns included staff not always introducing themselves, not clearly explaining their actions and appearing task-focused rather than child-centred in some interactions. This indicated that, while care was generally compassionate, it was not consistently delivered across all staff groups.

Staff signposted children and families to other services when appropriate and supported them to access additional care and support where needed.

We treat people as individuals and make sure their care, support and treatment meets their needs and preferences, taking account of their strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

The trust had an equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) policy in place which supported staff to deliver inclusive care and reduce inequalities. Staff had completed a range of additional training, including health inequalities, mental health, restrictive practice and the mandatory learning disability and autism training (Level 1). This supported staff to recognise and respond to the diverse needs of children and young people.

Staff made reasonable adjustments to meet the individual needs of children, young people and their families. This included facilitating access to services, meeting communication needs through interpreters or signing services, and supporting access to spiritual care where required.

Initial assessments identified individual needs, including special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). Staff used a range of personalised approaches to support care delivery, such as hospital passports, sensory adaptations, quieter environments and reduced stimulation. Communication was tailored using visual aids, social stories and play-based techniques, with parents and carers actively involved as partners in communication. Staff also worked collaboratively with community paediatric and education services to ensure continuity of care.

Safeguarding processes supported the identification and protection of vulnerable children, ensuring appropriate support was in place.

Food provision met a range of dietary, cultural and medical needs, including allergies and religious requirements. Patient feedback on food quality had improved, with satisfaction increasing to 92.6% in the 2024/25 survey.

Information about care, treatment, services and how to raise concerns was accessible and provided in formats suitable for children, young people and their families, including easy-read materials and translated information where required.

We promote people’s independence, so they know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment. and wellbeing.

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.

Children, young people (CYP) and their families were actively involved in decision-making throughout their care. They told us they received information at each stage of their journey, including prior to appointments and during inpatient stays, which supported them to make informed decisions.

Opportunities were available for CYP and their families to provide feedback on their experiences, including through annual patient surveys and feedback forms. This supported the service to understand and respond to people’s views.

Staff supported children and families to make decisions about their care using translation services, age-appropriate information and communication tools. This enabled children and young people to participate in decisions and promoted shared decision-making.

Staff had completed additional training to support children with mental health needs, learning disabilities and autism. Compliance with mental health awareness training and Learning disability and autism training Level 1 training was high, which supported staff to meet individual needs and promote inclusive care.

However, compliance with face-to-face learning disability and autism training (Tier 1 and Tier 2) was variable across staff groups, ranging from 27% to 80%. This meant the service could not fully assure that all staff had the advanced skills required to consistently support children and young people with a learning disability and autistic people.

We listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. We respond to these in that moment and will act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We scored the service as 3. 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 minimize any discomfort, concern, or distress.

Staff recognised and responded to changes in children and young people’s (CYP) needs and risks, adapting care accordingly. Communication needs were well supported through access to professional interpreting and signing services. Additional resources, such as special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) boxes, were available across clinical areas to support communication and sensory needs.

Preoperative and admission processes ensured staff were aware of individual needs, risks and required support. Children who required additional time were offered extended pre-assessment appointments and, where appropriate, pre-admission visits to familiarise themselves with the environment. Multidisciplinary teams reviewed needs to ensure appropriate and timely support was in place.

Feedback from the 2024/25 patient survey was largely positive, particularly in relation to staff support and communication. However, some concerns were identified regarding inconsistencies in communication between staff and differing information provided about treatment. This indicated that communication was not always consistent across the service.

The play team provided a seven-day service and played a key role in supporting communication and reducing anxiety. They worked with families to identify and implement appropriate adaptations where communication barriers existed. The service had also worked in partnership with a local deaf school to improve accessibility, including initiatives such as the ‘Little Voices’ visit.

Discharge information was provided both verbally and in written formats, including translated materials where required. Analysis of complaints and incidents had identified communication and lack of updates as a recurring theme. In response, the service implemented an action plan, including the introduction of CYP voice improvements in September 2025. These included visual communication tools and daily huddles to identify and support children and families with communication or sensory needs. This demonstrated that the service responded to feedback and took action to improve the patient experience.

Spiritual support was available for children and families. In the event of a child’s death, dedicated staff were allocated to support families through the process. This included providing clear information, emotional support and memory boxes. Staff had received training in child death review processes, supporting compassionate and sensitive care during bereavement.

We care about and promote the wellbeing of our staff, and we support and enable them to always deliver person centred care.

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 reported that they generally felt respected, supported and valued within their teams, and were positive about working for the organisation. This contributed to a culture where staff felt able to deliver person-centred care.

Support for staff wellbeing was available, including access to occupational health services, an employee assistance programme and external counselling support. These services supported staff with their physical and emotional health needs.

Staff appraisals included discussions about professional development and career progression. The trust also recognised staff achievements through initiatives such as staff awards, which promoted staff engagement and morale.

The most recent staff survey identified areas for improvement, including team relationships, support from immediate line managers and opportunities for learning and development. In response, the service developed an action plan focused on improving psychological safety, communication, team working, leadership visibility and development opportunities.

While some progress had been reported during 2025, the service was unable to demonstrate that all planned actions had been fully implemented or evaluated in 2026. This meant the service could not fully assure that identified workforce concerns had been effectively addressed.