St Helier Hospital and Queen Mary's Hospital for Children

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

Patients said staff were kind, compassionate and treated them with dignity. They felt emotionally supported and described staff as considerate and reassuring. Families were usually involved in care planning when patients wished this.

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.

Patients described staff as kind, considerate and caring. Many spoke positively about the compassion shown to them, saying staff were “wonderful”, “very nice”, and “considerate and kind”. One patient said staff “covered all bases, even before you think of a question, they have answered it already”, reflecting proactive, empathetic communication. Another told us that nurses were “wonderful” and that they felt emotionally supported throughout their stay.

Patients said staff maintained their privacy and dignity, including during personal care and sensitive conversations. They told us they felt comfortable raising concerns with doctors and nurses. Examples of good practice were recorded, including positive feedback for a staff member who maintained a patient’s dignity during a major haemorrhage, ensuring appropriate personal care was provided even during a critical event.

Patients also described how staff supported them emotionally, especially when coping with anxiety or breathlessness. Some were referred to the palliative care team and for psychological support. One patient commented that the palliative care team had been “very informative” and that the support “was working out well”, showing that emotional needs were considered alongside clinical care.

Families were often included in discussions and care planning. One patient said, “staff talked to my daughter; it is easy for her to be involved.” However, communication with relatives was not always consistent. Some patients reported variable updates from staff, including one relative who was told they would be called daily but said this did not always happen.

While many patients had positive experiences, the quality of care and dignity was not consistent across all areas. Complaints audits identified cases where staff attitude had fallen below expected standards, with some patients describing staff as “rude”. Some complaints described the use of jargon or unclear explanations, which made it harder for patients to understand their care.

Leaders were aware of these issues. Patients experience data and complaint themes were routinely discussed at the patient safety and quality group, and action plans were developed to address recurrent concerns such as poor communication, staff attitude and delays in care. This showed the service understood where care was inconsistent and was taking steps to address these concerns.

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.

Patients told us that staff were attentive and responded quickly when they needed help. One patient said, “If I need anything, they come straight away,” which reflected a responsive approach in several areas of the service. Staff were observed checking on patients regularly for pain relief, hydration and repositioning, rather than waiting to be asked. Patients described feeling reassured, particularly during periods of anxiety or confusion, and said staff communicated calmly to help them understand changes in their condition or treatment.

Staff adapted their approach for patients who had communication difficulties or more complex needs, using simple language and involving family members when appropriate. This helped patients feel understood and supported during their admission.

However, while some patients experienced timely and attentive care, the service did not provide consistently prompt or clinically responsive care across all wards. On some medical wards, medicines were not always administered on time, which led to action plans for B5 and C5 wards to address this.

There were also concerns about the response to more urgent clinical needs. A formal complaint on C3 ward identified gaps in sepsis management and pain management identified delays in carrying out regular observations, which risked late recognition of deterioration and resulted in actions to improve how often and how accurately observations were undertaken. Staff had not always escalated changes in a patient’s condition promptly, and pain relief was not always assessed or administered in a timely manner. This was supported by a quality improvement project on sepsis, which found that up to 35% of surveyed staff had never assessed a patient for sepsis and described a lack of knowledge and confidence in recognising early signs of deterioration.

The responsiveness to mobility needs also varied. While some staff were proactive, there were missed opportunities for early and safe mobilisation, with families and doctors reporting delays in helping patients get up. Physiotherapists also reported that some staff did not seem confident with mobilising patients in a safe way. This increased the risk of deconditioning, particularly for older people.

On the elderly care wards, we found that planned daily activities were not taking place; one ward had a day room that was being used for storage, and patients staying for prolonged periods did not have access to activities, social engagement, or even basic stimulation such as television, which increased the risk of deconditioning and loss of independence.

The service was aware of the gaps and was taking steps to improve practice. The service recognised these issues and had implemented action plans and QI projects to improve response times, clinical assessments and early recognition of deterioration.

Staff described a supportive wellbeing culture and said they felt able to raise concerns about workload or stress. They told us managers were approachable, and there were systems in place to monitor staff wellbeing. Staff said they were usually able to take breaks and had access to rest facilities. Flexible working arrangements were supported where possible, which helped staff balance personal commitments alongside work responsibilities. Staff surveys and feedback indicated that many staff felt a sense of belonging within their teams and that their views were listened to. Staff also had access to the resources they needed to do their jobs, including clinical equipment and IT tools. However, lower scores in areas such as recognition and morale suggested that workforce pressures continued to impact staff wellbeing.

The trust provided a wide range of wellbeing support. Staff had access to an in‑house counselling service offering confidential psychological support, including one‑to‑one sessions, trauma therapy and management guidance. The trust ran wellbeing initiatives such as grief awareness week and menopause awareness week and provided dedicated quiet spaces including the refurbished ‘Quiet Garden’. A management of stress at work policy was in place, with tools for managers to carry out individual and team stress risk assessments.

Workload pressures also varied across services. The risk register highlighted shortages in senior medical staffing. Although registered nurse cover was often high, the fill rate for non‑registered care staff was frequently below the expected level. Reduced support from healthcare assistants increased the workload for nursing staff, affecting their ability to take breaks and manage essential care tasks. The service showed awareness of these challenges through entries on the risk register, workforce reviews, and the development of action plans to increase consultant and registrar staffing.