The Princess Alexandra Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

We looked for evidence that people were at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

We scored this quality statement as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff made sure patients and carers could get help from interpreters or signers when needed. Staff provided interpretation services and information on how to access the service was visible on the wards we visited and in the operating theatres. Staff offered literature, on request, in different formats, such as large print, braille, audio tape or translated into a different language. Hearing loops were operational in ward areas.

Staff ensured patients were given a choice of food and drink to meet their cultural and religious preferences.

The service made reasonable adjustments to allow additional visiting for some patients, for example, those with neurodiverse relatives were able to utilise ward quiet rooms if required.

The adult inpatient survey 2024 highlights that the trust performed “much worse than expected” in 14 questions related to patient experience and involvement in care. The trust provided an action plan and improvement was monitored through the Quality and Safety Committee.

There were mixed views from patients and relatives about their experiences of receiving person centred care. Most patients spoke of being involved in and receiving good standards of care and treatment that met their needs. Whereas some patients and relatives expressed concerns about not being effectively involved in making shared decisions and receiving inconsistent information.

We scored this quality statement as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. There were some shortfalls in how the service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Information boards were found on the wards with key information such as dietary requirements, manual handling requirements and mobility status to ensure continuity of care. However, we observed these were not always completed to accurately reflect the patients’ needs.

Staff told us they referred patients to required specialist services, such as such as speech and language therapy and occupational therapy when required via the EPR system. Staff told us patient reviews happened in a timely manner although this was not audited. Therapy staff told us that patient referrals were triaged and seen in priority order to ensure adequate care provision.

Patients’ care and treatment was not always delivered in a way that met their needs because of incomplete assessments. For example, nutritional risk assessments were not completed in 11 of 14 reviewed patient records to identify potential risks and plan necessary mitigations.

Staff told us that discharge summaries were not always completed in a timely way resulting in continuity of care on discharge being compromised and delayed. The trust advised us that they were aware of issues around patients receiving a transfer of care document owing to the implementation of the EPR and that this was being addressed as a priority. We have not seen an action plan to support this and as such were not assured patients care on discharge was implemented as per trust policy.

We scored this quality statement as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service met the accessibility information standards and supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs upon request.

Patients waiting for elective joint replacement surgery were invited to the trust for a preoperative teaching session designed to inform patients of their pathway and planned recovery. We observed this during our inspection and patients we spoke to welcomed the session and found it informative. The trust advised they were working to develop similar sessions for patients due to undergo major colorectal surgery.

Staff received training in data security and were aware of the importance of managing information responsibly and confidentially. Within the surgery division 96.3% of nursing staff and 75.9% of medical staff had completed information governance and data security awareness training. This meant that nursing staff were in compliance of the 95% trust target and medical staff were not complaint.

Patients were given information leaflets to explain surgical procedures. Though some patients and relatives told us they were not always informed about their discharge arrangements.

We scored this quality statement as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service enabled people to easily share feedback, ideas, and complaints about their care. Staff involved patients in decisions and informed patients of changes made to their care as a result.

Feedback was gathered through various tools, including NHS Friends and Family forms and the hospital’s incident reporting system. Between September 2025 and October 2025, the surgical division received 53 formal complaints, 14 of which were responded to in the time frame set out by the trusts policy. Complaints were responded to by the Chief Executive following investigation by relevant divisional staff. Key themes were identified as appointment delays, surgery cancellations and delays and communication issues. The trust informed us they had complaint management group meetings and had introduced new response writing sessions for staff aimed at improving engagement from clinical staff to complaint response. Patients we spoke to knew how to raise concerns and escalate unresolved issues. Staff told us they tried to address any concerns right away.

The trust had “Call for Concern” as part of Martha’s Rule to give clear routes of escalation available when families or carers had concerns regarding clinical deterioration of their loved ones. We saw information signs promoting this to families and carers on the wards we visited and staff were knowledgeable about the service.

We scored this quality statement as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Support for inpatients was available from the learning disability team and staff completed learning disability training. Compliance for this training module met the trust target with 96.6% of nursing staff within the surgical division having completed it. However, only 65.1% of medical staff had completed this training module.

The use of hospital passports and “This is Me” documents helped care providers better understand who an individual really was. This could help staff deliver care that was tailored to an individual’s needs. Staff we spoke to during our inspection were aware of these documents but told us the effective use of these tools was hindered by the EPR system as not all documents were uploaded.

Staff were able to order specialist equipment such as air mattresses and bariatric equipment as required. All staff we spoke to knew how to access equipment if needed to support the care and treatment of patients.

The trust had processes in place to identify patients that may require additional support, such as individuals with dementia, autism or a learning disability. These patients were identified by medical and nursing teams who would then inform relevant parties. Staff made reasonable adjustments to support individuals such as pre-arranged visits prior to planned surgery.

We scored this quality statement as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff had a good understanding of patients that used the service and were most likely to experience inequality in their care. Staff completed equality, diversity and inclusion training as part of their mandatory training. Compliance for this training module met the trust target with 97.5% of nursing staff within the surgical division having completed it. However, only 75.1% of medical staff had completed this training module.

Patients told us their needs and preferences were assessed and understood by staff. They told us they were treated in a non-discriminatory way.

Staff told us they treated people equally and without discrimination. They were able to give examples of how they respected the individual wishes of people with protected characteristics.

Of the policies we reviewed all had an equality impact assessment completed ensuring they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage.

We scored this quality statement as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

During our inspection we reviewed Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment forms (ReSPECT) and do not attempt resuscitation forms (DNAR) for 6 patients on the surgical wards. Of these, 4 forms had a documented conversation with the patient or their representative around the individual resuscitation status and had clear clinical rationale as to why resuscitation would not be in the patient’s best interest. The trust audit completed in September 2025 recommended that clinical colleagues should be encouraged to complete the ReSPECT training module. We saw no evidence of an associated action plan to show that concerns were being addressed appropriately. Therefore, we were not assured leaders were taking the necessary actions to ensure patients care wishes and preferences were being discussed and documented.

The service had a volunteer led space for visitors and families to use when supporting a loved one nearing the end of life. Additionally, the volunteer service was able to provide bed side companionship for patients and respite for visitors.