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

Children and young people were treated with kindness, compassion and their privacy and dignity was respected. Staff understood the experience of how children and young people were treated and supported mattered. Children were treated as individuals and given choice and control where possible.

This is the first assessment for this service since the trust was formed in 2018. Caring is rated as good. This meant people always felt well-supported, cared for and or treated with dignity and respect.

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 treated children and young people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff were kind and caring. When speaking to children, young people, and family members, they all told us staff were kind and caring. We saw staff treat babies, children, and young people with compassion, dignity and respect. Staff spoke compassionately about caring for their patients and they wanted to provide the best care and treatment for them.

Staff recognised the need to treat children and young people with dignity and making sure they were comfortable with who the staff were. When nurses or doctors needed to complete observations or care or treatment, curtains were pulled around the bed or side room doors were closed. We saw staff explaining to children and young people or their families and carers who they were and what they were proposing for the care and treatment.

Staff showed compassion for how families would be feeling. Neonatal staff showed compassion and kindness when speaking to parents about their babies who were unwell. Parents were able to sit with staff in a quiet room. Where parents were visibly upset, staff were offering comfort and support and explaining the next steps for care and treatment.

There were some nice touches for families who were going home with their baby. When babies were ready to be discharged from the neonatal unit, parents could ring a celebration bell as they left. The service provided a photo or video for a keepsake.

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 promptly and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern, or distress. We saw children and young people had access to the call bells and staff answered them in a timely manner.

Staff had a good understanding of the children and young people’s needs. There was good communication between departments. A handover took place between staff before the child or young person arrived on the ward.

The service used various communication aids for children and young people who were non-verbal. This would be identified within their ‘passport’ which described their wants, needs and preferences. Passports were used to ensure the children and young people’s needs were being met, but also to ensure there was consistency from the staff team when providing care and treatment.

However, parents told us they were unable to bring their children onto the ward to see their siblings. They stated this added additional pressures on them, especially if they were a single parent. We raised this with the service in feedback, where we were told this would be assessed on an individual basis alongside important measures needed for infection prevention and control. However, not all of the staff team were aware of the decision to manage this individually at the time. The trust’s patient experience group had helped to review the visiting policy and changes had been made and following our feedback, staff were reminded to the new arrangements.

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

Staff felt supported in their wellbeing. We met with 25 members of staff of all levels who all felt well supported by the team and managers. However, they did say staff shortages and working cross-site had an impact at times on staff morale. Staff told us the wellbeing leads were visible and approachable for support where needed. Staff felt comfortable to raise concerns to their direct manager.

There was support for wellbeing and health. This included a hospital wellbeing hub for all staff to get individual support. The service encouraged staff to also obtain support from an independent organisation who could provide staff with 9 months of support and strategies to help them in relation to stress, anxiety or low mood.