Good Hope 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 which remained the same as the previous inspection. We reviewed 3 quality statements during this assessment.

People were always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion and privacy and dignity was always respected. Staff listened to, understood and responded to the needs of people and acted to minimise their distress. Staff wellbeing was promoted to enable them to always deliver person-centred care.

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.

The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People felt they were treated with kindness, compassion and dignity in their day-to-day care and support. All patients we spoke with told us how kind and caring staff had been during their admission. One patient told us, “The staff have been excellent, they are so attentive and caring” with another patient stating, “how lovely the staff are.”

Staff tried to ensure patients’ privacy and dignity was respected and upheld at all times. However, staff raised concerns over how they were not always able to maintain privacy and dignity for patients who were moved up to the ward as part of the ‘Push’ process. These patients were located in ward corridors while awaiting a bed to become available. Staff tried to ensure privacy whilst personal care was being delivered by using mobile curtains. However, all staff we spoke with recognised this was not ideal and not the standard of care they wanted to provide to their patients.

Patients told us most staff listened to them and communicated with them appropriately and in ways they understood. One patient told us they had discussed their care with the medical team every day and they tailored conversations to enable them to understand. Other patients told us how staff kept them informed of everything that was happening and why they were doing tests and examinations. However, there was a patient who had voiced concerns about a procedure they had undergone and said staff were not listening to them. This had made them wary about further procedures required despite being aware of why staff needed to undertake the procedures.

Patients told us staff mostly responded to their needs quickly and efficiently, especially if they were in pain, discomfort or distress. All patients told us how busy staff were and how hard staff worked. This at times meant when they called for help, there could be delays, but staff tried to ensure they responded to patient needs as quickly as they could. One patient told us they had informed staff they were in significant pain, and they were provided pain relief immediately.

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.

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff took account of patients’ needs, views, wishes and comfort and ensured they were a priority and acted quickly to avoid any preventable discomfort, concern or distress. In addition to the immediate ward staff meeting the immediate needs of patients to reduce distress and discomfort, we also observed additional support being provided by specialist nurses and faith leaders.

Staff were alert to patients’ needs and took time to observe, communicate and engage patients in discussing their immediate needs. Staff completed documents which enabled them to record the patients’ interests and information about how to meet their immediate needs. We observed staff referring to these during our assessment. On 1 ward, staff were aware of a patient preferring to have a radio playing and had provided a patient with this. This had a positive impact on their wellbeing.

Staff also had access to resources for meeting the needs of patients which included communication tools. On a longer-term prospect for meeting the needs of people, feedback was collected in some wards and displayed on a ‘you said, we did board.’

Staff recognised when patients needed urgent help and support and used appropriate tools and technology to assist. Staff supported patients who became distressed in an open environment and helped them maintain their privacy and dignity. When breaking bad news, staff ensured this was completed in a supportive and empathetic approach. We observed staff managing the needs of a patient who had become distressed by engaging with them in activities which they knew had a positive impact on them. They enabled them to sit in an area where they knew they would feel less distressed.

Patients and their families could give feedback on the service and their treatment and staff supported them to do this. Staff provided information about the NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT) to patients to encourage them to provide their feedback. Information showed medical services at this location had a low response rate with only 31 responses received between November 2024 and January 2025 out of many hundreds of patients. Staff identified the current process at the trust was not completely accessible and therefore improvements for how this information was collected was required. Although this was one of the main sources for patient feedback, this was not the only way patients provided their feedback.

Information provided by the service showed there had been 44 compliments which had been collected by the wards and medical departments between November 2024 and January 2025. Wards and services also used incidents and complaints to inform where improvements were required alongside the direct feedback from patients.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

People received safe, effective and person-centred care by staff who mostly had their wellbeing needs prioritised by the trust. The trust had implemented a wellbeing team across the trust who visited wards to provide staff with support. We observed the team visiting a ward area to provide refreshments to the staff on duty at the time. There were also areas provided for staff to visit away from ward and department areas which supported their wellbeing. However, staff told us they were still challenged at times when it came to being able to take breaks during their workday, although this was not as bad as when we were previously onsite during the last inspection.

People’s experience of the service was driven by a culture that normalised good wellbeing inclusivity, active listening and open conversations. Staff told us the culture within the service had improved since our last inspection. They now felt they were being listened to and there was more of an open culture where concerns could be raised. This had improved the positivity within most of the areas we visited. There were areas where the progress was not as advanced as others, but staff within these areas were able to identify they were on the right track to a more positive environment.

People were supported by staff who felt valued by their leaders and colleagues. Most staff told us they felt supported by senior staff and were able to approach them if they needed to. There were some staff who did not experience this with their leaders. However, they had good support from their colleagues and peers. Where staff did not feel supported by their immediate leaders, staff told us they had alternative managers or leaders who they were able to approach for support.