Stroud Maternity Hospital Also known as Stroud Maternity Unit

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 that people’s privacy and dignity was respected, that they understood that 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.

This location was last inspected under the maternity and gynaecology framework in 2015. Following a consultation process CQC split the assessment of maternity and gynaecology in 2018. As such the historical maternity and gynaecology rating is not comparable to the current maternity inspection and is therefore retired. This has been rated as good.

This key question has been rated good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

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 the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

Women constantly reported that staff treated them with kindness, compassion, and dignity. Staff listened attentively and communicated clearly, including explaining clinical terminology in accessible language. They demonstrated a strong commitment to person‑centred care by taking time to understand individual needs. During an antenatal clinic, we observed staff encouraged women and their partners or families to ask questions and discuss their birth plans with them.

As there were no women giving birth, we did not get to see a shift handover. Staff explained the handover process to us and how they shared information between each shift. We observed team members being kind and respectful to each other.

Staff greeted women appropriately, introduced themselves, and acted with courtesy and respect. Women spoke positively about the service, describing staff as caring, respectful, and attentive to their individual needs. Staff consistently involved women in decisions about their care, upheld their privacy and dignity, and maintained confidentiality when handling personal information.

Staff had access to interpretation services and understood how to use them in the hospital setting.

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.

Women’s needs and preferences were understood and reflected in their care throughout pregnancy and birth. Women told us they felt listened to and involved in decisions about their care and treatment.

Staff respected individual needs and demonstrated a non‑judgmental approach. Emotional support was available, and a bereavement suite with specialist midwife provision was provided at Gloucestershire Royal Hospital.

Information on spiritual support, treatments, local services, patient rights, and feedback processes was accessible. Interpretation services were available, with face‑to‑face support requiring advance booking.

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.

Women told us they had choice and control over their care. Staff listened to individual concerns and preferences and made reasonable efforts to accommodate these. We observed staff involving women in assessments and encouraging them to make informed decisions about their care.

Staff talked with women, and their families in a way they could understand, using communication aids where necessary. In the 2024 CQC maternity survey, people who had used maternity services gave a score of 8.8 out of 10 (10 being the highest) when asked about whether they participated in decisions about their care during labour and birth. This score was about the same as other trusts.

Women told us they felt involved in creating their birth plans. There was a birth preference service in place to support women with their birth plans.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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 understood women’s needs, views and wishes. We observed women and their families being greeted by staff introduced themselves. We observed a consultant led antenatal clinic and staff listened to women and answered any questions they had. Women told us staff discussed their birthing plans with them.

Refreshments were provided when needed. Staff had access to meals in the kitchen area for women who were giving birth.

Women and their families could give feedback about their care and treatment through the Friends and Family Test and the trust’s compliments, concerns and complaints process, was available on their website.

We scored the service 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 reported feeling supported by local leadership and colleagues, describing a collaborative team culture. Managers were seen as receptive to concerns, and professional midwifery advocates (PMA) were available for staff development and support.

Staff told us a transformation review of midwifery services was underway, and this was causing them anxiety, especially the maternity care assistants who felt their role may be abolished or they would need to move to the acute trust. This was ongoing at the time of our assessment.

Recruitment and retention efforts were ongoing by the trust, including initiatives such as a recruitment film that had been recently shortlisted for a national award.

Feedback from staff surveys demonstrated staff being safe and healthy as well as always learning, was lower than the trust average. To support staffing, the trust had developed new roles like the flow midwife who oversaw maternity services across the trust and triage matron which have been positively received. Retention strategies included flexible rostering and career progression opportunities.

Training was actively promoted through accessible formats such as internal social media. There had been recent training in ‘midwifery fundamentals’ for all staff to attend, leaders reported that feedback had suggested that this was a positive event. Training leads spoke of providing support to the community teams and standalone birthing units.

Staff had access to psychological and mental health support services, with resources visibly displayed across staff areas. Freedom to Speak up Guardian posters and staff well-being events were displayed. The trust had a monthly newsletter across the Division on the actions they are taking to improve maternity services, highlighting good practice and recognition for staff.