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

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has remained good. This meant people felt well-supported, cared for, and were treated with dignity and respect.

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 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 consistently demonstrated a caring approach and took time to understand people’s needs and preferences. People told us they felt listened to and staff interactions were warm and respectful. They described staff as “very kind and helpful”. Relatives we spoke with were happy with the communication and information given to them from staff. Observations during the inspection showed staff maintaining privacy during personal care and treating patients with empathy.

Staff were attentive to emotional wellbeing and offered support promptly when people were distressed or in discomfort. For example, we saw staff calmly explaining procedures and providing comfort to reduce anxiety before surgery. People said they felt safe and respected. Feedback from patient surveys reflected high satisfaction with the kindness and respect shown by staff, with 96% of respondents rating the service as good or very good across surgical wards in Friends and Family Test results.

There was a strong culture of dignity across the service. Staff ensured confidentiality and respected people’s choices about who could be involved in their care. We observed staff using curtains appropriately during examinations and when providing personal care.

We observed that there was a culture of cooperation and respect between colleagues. Staff collaborated with each other to provide support for people including support with emotional wellbeing.

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.

Staff treated people as individuals and tailored care to meet their needs and preferences. Staff took account of people’s personal, cultural and social backgrounds, as well as any protected characteristics. Plans for their care reflected individual choices, and staff adapted communication methods to ensure people understood their treatment options. For example, interpreters were available when needed.

People told us they felt involved in decisions about their care and that staff respected their views. Staff demonstrated awareness of cultural and religious needs, such as considering dietary requirements. We saw that there were cultural menus and allergy aware menus available for patients including halal and kosher options. Most patients commented that they enjoyed the food provided.

Staff used clear language and checked understanding, particularly for those with additional needs. Interpretation services were available to ensure patients could fully engage in discussions about their care. People said they felt listened to and were supported to express their wishes. Observations showed staff engaging with people in a way that promoted confidence and trust, ensuring care was person-centred and inclusive. Specialist learning disability staff supported teams in caring for patients with learning disabilities and autism. Staff used tools like ‘The Hospital Communication Book’ and patient passports to ensure that care was personalised, and that all relevant information was accessible.

Staff also worked closely with families and carers to ensure their care reflected the person’s life outside the hospital. Such as, considering people’s home circumstances when planning discharge and involved carers in discussions about ongoing support.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff encouraged people to make decisions about their treatment and respected their rights. People felt they were provided with adequate information relating to their procedures to allow them to make informed decisions about their care, treatment, and overall wellbeing. In addition, staff promoted independence by offering practical advice and seeking patient and family input during discharge planning. There were also opportunities to access peer support and professional advice in a relaxed setting. For example, the glaucoma support group run in conjunction with an external organisation enabled individuals to share experiences, ask questions that mattered to them, and receive guidance from healthcare professionals without pressure. These sessions were designed to empower people, promote self-management, and respect personal preferences, helping them feel more in control of their care and decisions.

The service made efforts to accommodate individual needs and preferences, offering resources like information leaflets and providing interpreter services to support effective communication. There was a range of appropriate equipment to support and maximise people’s independence and outcomes from care and treatment. People said they felt in control of their care and appreciated being consulted about changes. Staff also supported patients with sensory impairments, ensuring they had access to communication aids and resources, making them active partners in their care and enhancing their independence. Patients were given a choice of food and drink to meet their cultural and religious preferences.

People told us they were supported in maintaining relationships and visiting arrangements were flexible. Some patients told us volunteers took song requests for the St Helier hospital radio which they found valuable. However, patients told us they only had access to television for part of the day, and they reported that there were few activities available.

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.

Observations showed that staff were proactive in engaging with patients and addressing their concerns promptly, often using appropriate tools. In theatres, staff demonstrated vigilance during procedures, ensuring safety checks were completed and responding quickly to clinical changes. For example, anaesthetic teams acted promptly when a patient’s blood pressure dropped, and the team worked together calmly to stabilise the patient. Staff anticipated patient needs well, such as offering help with mobility and monitoring patients requiring enhanced care such as those at high risk of falls.

Staff also coordinated effectively with other teams to address urgent needs, such as arranging diagnostic tests and escalating deteriorating patients to critical care outreach. This ensured timely interventions and maintained patient safety.

Staff generally responded promptly to people’s immediate needs. Patients told us staff were quick to provide pain relief and assistance when required. However, some patients described especially long waits for assistance overnight. They explained that this was especially difficult when they required assistance with the bathroom, resulting in accidents that left patients feeling undignified.

The service did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff generally felt supported by their managers and leaders and that they were visible and approachable. However, some staff also told us they experienced micromanagement and did not always feel confident to raise concerns because of fear of repercussions. They raised concerns about bullying and discrimination in theatres and on surgical wards, including allegations of unfair treatment of staff with protected characteristics and a lack of respect for staff with disabilities.

NHS staff survey results for the division were typically below or at the organisational average, indicating that there was low staff satisfaction and engagement among staff in the division. However, there had been positive trends and targeted actions to address some of these concerns. For example, the proportion of staff recommending the trust as a place to work increased from 57.4% to 60.9% in the 2024 and reported work–life balance improved slightly from 51.9% to 53.9%. Initiatives such as listening events, wellbeing champions in theatres, civility campaigns, and regular newsletters had been introduced to strengthen culture and support staff. However, areas requiring continued focus included appreciation among colleagues, and constructive handling of disagreements.

Following the inspection the trust informed us that in response to concerns regarding staff feelings about unfair treatment and feelings of discrimination a series of listening events were undertaken. This provided opportunities for improving team communication and relationships. Local staff surveys supported further feedback and were undertaken quarterly.

We observed that limited space particularly in the SACU was an issue and there was limited dedicated staff rest areas. This lack of adequate space and rest facilities can negatively affect staff wellbeing, as it restricts opportunities for staff to take breaks and recover during demanding shifts.

Training and development opportunities were provided to staff. There were opportunities for staff to take part in training such as in the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework (PSIRF) and take part or lead on quality improvement projects. Staff were supported in their training and development by practice educators. Nursing staff told us appraisals involved career conversations, although appraisal completion rates were lower than the trust target. We spoke with staff who had been assisted through learning opportunities at the trust to develop in their roles such as through nursing associate programmes.

The service made efforts to promote staff wellbeing and support them to deliver safe, compassionate care. The trust implemented organisation-wide policies and initiatives to support staff wellbeing, including a menopause policy designed to assist employees through practical adjustments and open dialogue, thereby reducing sickness absence and improving retention. Within the past 15 months, leaders had appointed a theatre wellbeing and civility champion dedicated to enhancing the overall wellbeing of all theatre staff. Leaders also organised listening events, supported initiatives to promote sexual safety, and created opportunities for staff to express their concerns. They indicated that fostering psychological safety was a key priority within their divisional improvement plan.

Staff generally reported good teamwork and said they enjoyed working in the service because of the learning opportunities. The trust had staff recognition programmes such as 'Staff in the Spotlight', which recognised individuals for their hard work and dedication. Other team recognition awards included department accreditations and awards, with several departments/wards within the surgical service receiving awards. Divisional newsletters regularly highlighted teams and individuals for outstanding efforts.