The Princess Alexandra 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.

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 this quality statement as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff did not always treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

During consultations with nursing or medical staff on the wards we visited, curtains and doors were closed which ensured privacy for patients.

However, we were told patients’ dignity was not always maintained when cared for overnight in the Post Anaesthetic Care Unit (PACU). The unit was mixed sex, had no toilet or bathroom facilities or kitchen. The trust’s policy indicated that the PACU was not to be used for inpatients requiring ward-based care. Data provided by the trust confirmed that in October 2025 59% of the patients that had their discharge to a ward delayed.

The trust’s NHS friends and family test for October 2025 showed a positive response in 75% of responses.

The CQC adult inpatient survey 2024 showed that trust scored ‘worse’ or ‘much worse’ than other trusts in 40 of 46 questions. We reviewed papers from the monthly Quality and Safety Committee and saw evidence that themes from the inpatient survey were discussed and an action plan drawn up to address these issues. The actions included initiatives to reduce noise on wards at night, volunteer support services at mealtimes to assist patients in need, and ongoing work with the discharge improvement plan.

Staff were discreet and responsive when caring for patients. Staff took time to interact with patients in a respectful and considerate way. We observed kind, caring interactions between patients and staff. Staff explained to patients what they were doing when providing care and treatment.

Patients said staff treated them well and with kindness. Patients told us that communication was good and that staff knew a lot of information about their care and treatment which was shared with them.

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.

Staff gave patients and those close to them help, emotional support and advice when they needed it and supported patients who became distressed and helped them maintain their privacy and dignity.

Staff utilised private rooms to discuss sensitive details or for breaking bad news.

The hospital had a chaplaincy service and a bereavement service which staff could access to provide support to patients and their relatives.

Staff told us they could provide patients and relatives with information in different languages if required.

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 made sure patients and those close to them understood their care and treatment. Patients we spoke with during our assessment understood their treatment plans. Patients were involved in decision making about their care with their choices and wishes documented in the patient care record.

Staff talked with patients, families and carers in a way they could understand. Staff used communication aids where necessary such as hearing loops and providing printed information.

Patients on the surgical wards told us they were happy with their care and staff offered refreshments appropriately. Patient feedback on food provision was mixed: some patients described it as excellent, while others suggested improvements. The trust offered a range of food options to accommodate religious beliefs.

During our assessment we observed appropriate equipment such as hoists and walking frames available to help staff promote independence and mobility.

The trust had a learning disabilities (LD) nurse in post who ensured that patients with learning disabilities were reviewed each day. Staff used hospital passports. The trust worked with the community LD team who liaised closely with inpatient or outpatient departments to discuss and organise reasonable adjustments. There was a flagging system within EPR to ensure staff were aware of patients in their care who had a learning disability.

We scored this quality statement as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff understood the importance of identifying needs, views and wishes and aimed to prioritise this. Staff told us they worked to meet patients’ immediate needs, but high demand for one-to-one care without dedicated staff sometimes made this difficult.

Most patients we spoke with commented they could access their call bell and use it to alert staff. We observed staff responding when call bells were used and if there was a delay patients told us staff explained why.

We observed ‘nurse rounding’, a system whereby staff interact with patients to ensure any immediate needs are met. The trust did not audit the effectiveness or compliance with ‘nurse rounding’ and informed us they were aware this was a problem with the EPR and was logged on the risk register. We were not assured that patients received prompt personal care from the health records reviewed.

We scored this quality statement 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 told us they felt supported, respected, valued and were proud to work at the trust. Staff could raise concerns with senior leaders, managers on the wards and within operating theatres. Staff said they were comfortable in approaching any staff member to discuss concerns.

Staff felt the workload for the service was busy but enjoyed the environment and felt they had what they needed to perform their roles.

The trust has developed a secondment programme for senior nursing roles within surgery to support staff in applying for roles that they may not normally consider. This initiative has changed the diversity of the senior nursing team across the surgical division to be more inclusive and reflective of the workforce. Additionally, development pathways for staff at lower levels were in place to support professional development.

The trust offered a range of staff recognition and award programmes, with several members of the surgical division receiving accolades over the past 12 months.