St Peter's Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Our rating for this key question remains good. We found staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Patients and their relatives we spoke with were overwhelmingly positive about the care and support they received. One person told us, “The staff are all very good here really quiet and calm.”

Feedback from staff was mixed, with more negative views from nursing members working in frontline roles. We were told that patients did not always get good care and examples included medicine rounds being interrupted, observations missed, and meals or drinks delayed. Staff recounted that they were “kept awake at night worrying about missed care or mistakes.”

The trust complied with legal equality and human rights requirements.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Patients and relatives told us they felt confident that clinical staff had assessed their individual needs, and these were understood. One person said, “staff gave attention to patient needs as much as possible.” A longer-standing inpatient told us “I have been here for 3 weeks – it’s a bit chaotic at times but mostly very good.” “Staff treat and respond to patients well - very kind and thoughtful.” Another told us: “everything I need I get including at night times.” Others commented on ward situations. Oner person said, “a lady was disorientated and difficult… staff were very good with her – fantastic” “The care here is very good.”

Feedback from staff was mixed. Medical and nursing staff described how they tried to make sure people were kept central to decisions about their care and treatment. However, some staff stated that patients did not always get good care due to staffing shortages compounded by short term sickness.

We saw that patients were asked about choice of food and timing of observations, such as taking blood pressure measurements.

While the care we observed was safe and person-centred, our team confirmed that planned vs actual nursing staffing did not match, due to short notice sickness absence. We detected indications of patient harms that could attributed to low nursing staffing and skill mix, such as unwitnessed falls and medicine administration errors along with reported lapses in personal care (such as promoting mobility, nutrition and hygiene).

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Patients and relatives confirmed they were provided with information that was accessible and clear to understand. We spoke with one patient whose first language was not English, who said there had been no real problems and anticipated they could get family support with any communication needs. Patients spoke in positive terms about the explanations they had and how their questions were resolved.

Staff and leaders gave examples about how patients and relatives could get information and advice that was provided in a way that they understood and which met their communication needs. Staff and managers we spoke with were familiar with the Accessible Information Standard.

We observed occasions where staff were effectively communicating with relatives and patients about their care and treatment. The trust had arrangements in place to provide translation services to those people who needed it and staff we spoke with knew how to access these services

Patients and relatives we spoke with knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support including how to raise any concerns or issues.

Most people we spoke with felt confident that if they needed to complain, they would be taken seriously and treated compassionately. We were given examples where this did not happen, or the answer received from the trust via the patient liaison service was delayed or incomplete.

Most people we spoke with felt confident that if they complained, they will be taken seriously and treated compassionately. However, we were given examples where this did not happen or the answer received from the patient liaison service was delayed or incomplete.

Clinical and nursing staff expressed concerns to us that learning from complaints and concerns was not always applied or communicated consistently. However, staff could generally give examples of how they incorporated learning into daily practice.

Complaint performance (95% within 45 working days) was not achieved in November (66%) or December (60%). This was subject to an improvement plan and had improved to 76.4% in January and 78.5% in February 2024. Senior managers explained that performance was impacted by receipt of timely responses across areas, sign off by divisional leaders, and significant staff absences in the Patient Experience Team (PET).

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The trust responded to requests from national audits and carried out separate audits to ensure the care provided was safe and effective. These included audits on the use of the ‘This is Me’ dementia care passport; the use of anti-psychotic and rapid tranquillisation in dementia care and environmental audits to ensure relevant areas were dementia friendly.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.