Pilgrim 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

We looked for evidence that the service treated people with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people were treated with compassion, kindness, 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.

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 interacted warmly with patients and introduced themselves by name. All staff we observed demonstrated a caring attitude. Staff were discreet and responsive when caring for patients and took time to interact with patients in a respectful and considerate way. Staff ensured they spoke to confused or semi-conscious patients when providing care to them. Patients told us staff treated them well and with kindness. Patients told us they felt safe.

Bedside signage, such as ‘what matters most’ and ‘bed rails’, was present at the bedside but had not always been completed. Some name boards on occupied beds were incomplete, with patient names and the allocated nurse and doctor not recorded.

As part of the inspection process, we requested friends and family test (FFT) data from the trust for the areas we inspected. We reviewed Friends and Family Test (FFT) data for the inspected areas, covering monthly results from 2025. The discharge lounge received 100% positive feedback. Ward 8A averaged 90.8% positive and 4.4% negative feedback, and ward 7B averaged 85% positive and 7.4% negative feedback. Ward 7A received 77.3% positive and 12.3% negative feedback. Ward 6B received 75.4% positive and 11.6% negative feedback, while ward 6A received 69.1% positive and 9.3% negative feedback.

Staff were responsive to the needs of the patients. Call bells were answered promptly. Patients also told us staff were responsive to their needs.

Staff ensured patients were covered up during personal care to preserve dignity. Staff supported patients to get dressed in their own clothes where appropriate. When patients wore gowns, they offered appropriate cover.

It was observed that due to lack of mobile oxygen on the wards, patients were offered a bedside commode, even if they were able to mobilise and use the toilet. This meant patients had to choose between maintaining their dignity or prioritising their safety if they went to the toilet without oxygen.

Staff followed policy to keep patients’ treatment and care as confidential as possible. It was difficult in busy ward environments, but staff did make the effort. There were quiet rooms and side rooms on wards which staff used where possible to avoid holding private conversations over patients and break bad news to families. We observed staff use these rooms whilst on inspection. Staff used curtains when providing personal care for patients.

Where possible, patients and families felt involved in their care decisions. Information was provided in a way patients and families can understand. Patients told us they felt involved with and understood care decisions. We saw staff talking to families, carers and relatives whilst on inspection, both in person on the wards and on the phone.

Patients felt emotionally supported by staff. Whilst on the inspection, staff provided additional care and emotional support for patients who were in distress on the ward. All the wards had visiting hours in place for families, relatives and carers. Carers visiting relatives with dementia are provided free parking, which enabled longer visiting periods.

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. There is no previous rating for the Caring key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Caring key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Caring key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.