Gloucestershire Royal 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

At our last assessment we rated caring as good. At this assessment, the rating stayed the same at good.

We looked for evidence 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 every effort was made to take people’s wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect and involved as partners in their care.

Staff consistently treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion, and made efforts to understand individual needs despite the pressures of the environment. Patients told us they were treated well, and we observed respectful, supportive interactions, including proactive communication support such as British Sign Language (BSL) interpretation.

However, crowding affected people’s privacy and dignity, and staff could not always protect confidential conversations. Staff responded to deteriorating patients when risks changed, but the busy environment meant they did not always meet people’s immediate comfort needs. Staff felt valued and supported, though ongoing pressure was impacting morale and prompting some to consider leaving.

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.

The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed they tried to be discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it.

We observed a member of staff offered British Sign Language (BSL) interpreter to patient who was hard of hearing and ensured the patient could clearly see her to lip read to understand the conversation.

Staff directed patients to other services at triage when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services. Patients said staff treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them.

Patients were able to access basic needs such as food and drink. Hygiene was problematic as the department was not planned to accommodate patients’ hygiene needs for extended periods of time. Patients told us sleep was difficult due to noise and drafty corridors.

Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. Although the department was very busy, we observed staff supporting patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition.

However, patients’ confidentiality and privacy were not always protected This was due, in part, to crowding of the department where it was difficult to maintain privacy when talking to patients and their families.

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.

The service identified people’s individual communication needs to ensure information was provided in accessible ways. This included making reasonable adjustments for disabled people, interpreting and translation for people for whom English was not their first language and British sign language (BSL).

Chaperones were offered for sensitive examinations and discussions and patients were aware of this service.

Patients told us they knew how to make complaints or raise concerns. Information was displayed but not readily available in multiple languages.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to patients. For example, a patient had a very low blood count and had a blood transfusion commenced in a minor’s cubicle as there was no ward bed available. The patient was risk assessed and it was decided to start their treatment immediately, preventing further deterioration.

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 respected, supported and valued. Staff felt positive and proud about working for the provider and their team. Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service and a range of benefits available on the trust intranet site.

The provider recognised staff success within the service, for example, through annual staff awards, recognising the hard work and dedication of staff. Staff sickness and absence were similar to the national NHS average.

In the 2025 NHS staff survey results for the directorate (this includes medical care), morale, compassionate and inclusive, flexible working, staff engagement, safe and healthy were all lower results than the national average. Despite the range of staff support, some staff expressed the relentless pressure on the service was prompting them to leave the department in search of alternative employment.