Furness General 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 people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating remains good.

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

The service treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. The service treated people as individuals to promote independence by listening to and understanding people’s needs, The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff.

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 always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion and we respect their privacy and dignity. We treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

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.

Staff were discreet and responsive when caring for patients. Staff took time to interact with patients and those close to them in a respectful and considerate way. We observed kind, caring interactions between patients and staff. Staff explained to patients what they were doing when providing care and treatment. Patients said staff treated them well and with kindness.

Results of the ‘Urgent and Emergency Care (UEC) Survey 2024’ demonstrated 99% of patients who completed the survey reported a good experience in the emergency department. However, it was noted that these results were an aggregation of both UEC sites within the trust. We observed privacy and dignity were difficult to maintain for patients arriving at the department by ambulance waiting to access the assessment area. However, patients we spoke with did not voice any concerns and acknowledged the difficult circumstances staff were working in. A local survey completed by the trust asking patients if ‘they felt they were treated with privacy and dignity’ showed that in the last 12 months 99% of those responding said they were happy with the privacy and dignity afforded to them.

Staff and leaders acknowledged the difficulties in ensuring that dignified care was always upheld for patients and acknowledged the time other patients waited for treatment. Staff gave examples of how they understood and respected the individual needs of each patient. Staff told us that working relationships within the emergency department were positive, particularly how personal, cultural, social, and religious needs of patients and how these may relate to care needs.

We treat people as individuals and make sure their care, support and treatment meets their needs and preferences, taking account of their strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

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.

Patients told us they were treated as individuals and their preferences were understood. We saw feedback from patients thanking staff for their prompt action, care and treatment.

Staff made sure patients and those close to them understood their treatment. Staff talked to patients in a way they could understand, using communication aids where necessary. Staff told us they had different ways to communicate with patients who had different communication needs. Staff could access interpretation services by telephone, portable computers and could also access sign language interpreters. We also saw that patient information leaflets were available in various formats and languages. A hearing loop was available in the department.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, how to complain and so on. We saw posters and leaflets available in all patient areas.

Patients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances. Staff were able to give examples of how differing needs were met.

We promote people’s independence, so they know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment. and wellbeing.

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.

People were supported to understand their rights, care and treatment by using different ways to communicate.

Patients were supported to have choice and control over their own care and make decisions about their treatment and wellbeing. There was a range of appropriate equipment to support and maximise people’s independence and outcomes from care and treatment. For example, staff provided walking aids so patients with lower limb injury could mobilise safely. They were referred to fracture clinic and the physiotherapy and occupational therapy team if further support was needed to maintain independence..

We listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. We respond to these in that moment and will act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

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.

We observed staff treating patients and answering call bells promptly. Patients reported staff were attentive to their needs. We saw a patient was offered the opportunity to speak with their family by telephone to explain why they were in the department. Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, such as falls or pressure ulcers and care planned for these accordingly. Staff were shared risks at handover and safety huddles and used the information during ‘seen and safe’ intentional rounding.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to patients. We observed that patients were monitored, and treatment provided according to the presenting risk. We saw that patients were triaged and escalated according to their needs.

The service sought feedback from patients using the Friends and Family Test. Staff told us they mostly had positive results. The results were shared with the staff and actions taken to improve where needed. Patients who attended the minor treatment unit reported they were seen and treated promptly in the unit and appointments made if they needed to be reviewed again.

We care about and promote the wellbeing of our staff, and we support and enable them to always deliver person centred care.

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 felt respected, supported and valued. Staff within the department spoke highly of local leadership whilst acknowledging the difficulties and pressures the service faced.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service. We saw that a range of services were available that staff could self-refer and access. We also saw the use of a hot debrief form following any incident that was used to assist staff.

The service’s staff sickness was just above the national average of 6%. Medical staffing was 5% and nursing staff was 7%.

The provider recognised staff success within the service, we saw that the trust had a Health Heroes award that acknowledged staff’s contribution to patient care. We also saw that the trust’s work with internationally recruited nurses had been acknowledged at a national level.

Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported. We were given examples of how staff had been supported with moving into senior roles and also with advanced clinical roles.