Queens 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

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved patients and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

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

This meant patients were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

Staff treated patients with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. The service promoted patients’ independence, so patients knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

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 evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated patients with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed that they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. Patients were treated with dignity throughout their interactions with staff, and care was provided in a calm and considerate manner.

The December 2025 patient experience survey demonstrated positive feedback, with patients consistently describing staff as helpful, friendly and compassionate, and an overall satisfaction score of 88%.

Staff followed policy to keep patient care and treatment confidential. Staff kept side room doors closed when necessary so patients’ privacy could be maintained. We also saw staff spoke with patients in private to maintain confidentiality.

Staff ensured patients’ privacy and dignity was maintained during the ward round by pulling curtains around each bed before discussing patient information.

We observed positive and compassionate interactions between staff and a patient living with Alzheimer’s disease, who was attempting to leave the bay in search of their wife. Staff engaged with the patient in a calm and reassuring manner, using supportive communication techniques to redirect and comfort them. This demonstrated an understanding of the patient’s needs and an empathetic approach to dementia care.

We observed staff delivering care in a respectful and compassionate manner. Patients were involved in decisions about their care, and staff sought verbal consent before commencing treatments such as intravenous infusions. This supported patients’ dignity, privacy, and autonomy.

Staff understood the emotional and social impact that a person’s care, treatment, or condition had on their wellbeing and on those close to them. The service had a multi-faith chaplaincy team to provide emotional and religious support to patients and their visitors.

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 evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood patients’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to patients’ needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff prioritised patient comfort and responded quickly when they needed help. They ensured that patients living with mental health conditions, disabilities, or dementia received the care they needed, and adapted the service to meet their individual needs.

Staff were responsive to patients’ needs. We observed a nurse providing support to a patient living with dementia using clear, calm, and effective communication. Care was delivered in a gentle and respectful manner, which promoted dignity and helped the patient feel reassured and supported.

A dedicated room was available in the short stay unit to provide a private, supportive space for patients and relatives when receiving bad news.

Patients were supported to have choice and control over their own care and make decisions about their treatment and wellbeing. They respected patients’ views and used tools like hospital passports where appropriate.

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 had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs. Managers held health and well‑being meetings with staff.

We observed respectful and professional communication among staff and across multidisciplinary teams, including positive interactions with colleagues such as porters and domestic staff. These supportive and inclusive exchanges reflected a culture that valued staff wellbeing, fostering a psychologically safe and respectful working environment. This not only benefitted staff morale but also had a positive impact on patient experience.

Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported.

Staff took regular breaks. However, rest facilities were not always adequate. For example, SDEC staff told us they did not have access to a dedicated departmental staff rest area. The existing staff room was shared with the Acute Medical Unit and was described as small and insufficient to meet the needs of both teams. As a result, staff reported having limited opportunity to take breaks within the ward area and often used the hospital restaurant to take their lunch. The lack of adequate, accessible rest facilities may have impacted staff wellbeing and their ability to take protected breaks during shifts.

Staff spoke positively about teamworking within SDEC and told us that strong peer support and collaborative working were key factors in their decision to remain working in the department.