Pilgrim 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

We looked for evidence that the service planned for the future patients.

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant that the service planned for the future patients.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

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

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Where patients had capacity, they were supported to make informed choices about their care and future planning. Patients and families were involved when care plans changed. There was a private space on each of the wards for sensitive conversations. Care plans demonstrated there was discharge planning and discussion of future care options.

Care plans were personalised. Staff used the ‘all about me’ booklet for patients with dementia, as well as the living with dementia pathway and reasonable adjustments summary sheet used by ward staff. The ‘all about me’ booklet was sent home with patients upon discharge to support continuity of care.

Patients who may be approaching the end of their life were identified on the wards. Staff knew how to make referrals to the specialist palliative care team (SPCT). Staff told us they received timely support from the SPCT if they were required. Staff would always try to discharge the patient to their preferred place of death. Families were informed as early as possible in the process and allowed to ask questions and have open visiting. Wards would use side rooms and put a sign on the door indicating that a patients was end of life if they could not be discharged to a preferred place of death. If a patient that was put on palliative care improved they could be put back on active care.

Staff had an understanding DNACPR and ReSPECT forms. DNACPR stands for "Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation" and is a medical decision that states that a patient should not be resuscitated if their heart stops or they stop breathing. ReSPECT stands for recommended summary plan for emergency care and treatment. The ReSPECT process creates a summary of personalised recommendations for a person’s clinical care in a future emergency in which they cannot make decisions or to express wishes. Staff ensured patients and those close to them understood that a decision to not perform CPR does not mean withdrawal of other care. Individual records showed discussions had taken place around DNACPR decisions, and with those close to them.

When we reviewed records, we saw inconsistencies between capacity recording in the risk assessment and on the ReSPECT forms, however we were provided with assurance around some of these capacity inconsistencies following the inspection. On a monthly basis matrons undertake audits, these include looking at use and documentation of ReSPECT and mental capacity. As part of the inspection process, we requested this data between July and December 2025 from the trust for the areas we inspected. Results across all the wards we inspected were positive and demonstrated good practice.