Glenfield 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

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment we did not rate this key question as it was a focused inspection where we only looked at specific specialities. The rating for caring has remained as good. This meant people felt well-supported, cared for and treated with dignity and respect. People’s privacy and dignity was respected, staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion. Staff listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences.

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.

Specialities we assessed treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.

Privacy and dignity were well managed in most areas we visited. For example, patients had curtains pulled around their beds on wards when receiving personal care or when reviewing patients during ward rounds. All bays on wards we visited were single sex. Where there was not a bathroom in a bay, there were single sex bathrooms designated. Patients we spoke to considered staff respected their privacy and dignity.

Staff took time to interact with patients in a kind and respectful way. We observed staff stopping to listen to patients and understand any concerns they had. We observed staff referring to patients by their name in interactions which showed staff knew their patients.

Staff followed trust policies to keep patient care and treatment confidential. Patient records were a mixture of electronic and paper records. We observed paper records were kept in locked draws. Staff talked quietly when talking about personal information or talking to patients about their care in a patient bay. Rooms were available where staff could have confidential conversations with patients.

Patients felt staff listened to them and communicated with them in a way they could understand. Patients told us staff responded to their needs quickly and efficiently, especially if they were in pain, discomfort or distress.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed they were discreet, respectful and responsive. Staff provided patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. We observed staff supporting patients with kindness and respect. Their interactions were warm, compassionate, and considerate. Patients shared positive experiences of care, stating staff listened to them and respected their privacy and dignity.

Staff were aware of the impact on patients emotional and psychological wellbeing of having surgery, especially for patients with complex and or body changing surgery. Staff considered having conversations and listening to patients was as important as undertaking their observations. Staff told us about the importance of giving patients time for talking and listening which was putting patients at ease as they were having or had surgery. Staff were aware for some patients; the experience was traumatic. We observed all staff displaying empathy, listening and responding quickly to make the patients stay easier for them.

There were processes to collect and collate patient satisfaction data on surgical wards. At the time of our site assessment, this had not been implemented in the theatre department at Glenfield Hospital but there was a plan to roll this out. The trend and themes from these were used to improve services. The NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT) feedback for surgical specialties from May 2025 to March 2025 showed between 88 and 100% positive scores with an average of 30% response rate. This exceeded the 95% target. Feedback indicated ‘staff were amazing, friendly and nothing too much trouble’ and ‘cannot fault any part of the department and all of the care we have received’. FFT results including you said we did was displayed on wards we visited.

Specialities we assessed treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They generally took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People’s individual needs and preferences were understood and were reflected in their care, treatment and support. Staff implemented improvements to meet patient’s individual needs. For example, a project to improve hydration of patients had been implemented on ward 23. Staff implemented a different colour water jug lids to show how much fluids patients had throughout the day and to identify those who needed help with drinking.

Patients with complex needs were considered when planning theatre lists. For example, patients with allergies, diabetes, and anxiety were added to the front of the theatre list to avoid delays. Patients with previous cancellations or urgent cases were also prioritised.

People were treated as individuals, with staff considering any relevant protected equality characteristics. For example, a hospital passport was available to support the care of patients with a learning disability or autistic people. Staff told us they took time to discuss the care and management of patients with a learning disability to ensure the environment and timing of the operation met the patient’s needs. Staff told us they would allow carers to be present if required and this would be planned.

A multifaith chapel and prayer room was available for patients and visitors. The space was available to patients and their visitors for prayer, reflection, meditation and to attend religious services and belief-specific rituals. There was a multi-faith chaplaincy service onsite, and which included Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, and non-religious chaplains. They offered pastoral, spiritual, and religious support to anyone in need.

Specialities we assessed generally promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff supported patients to have choice and control over their own care and to make decisions about their care, treatment and wellbeing. Specialities we assessed were inclusive and took account of people’s individual needs and preferences. Staff made reasonable adjustments to help people, and their families access services. Side rooms and extended visiting were arranged for patients with a learning disability, those living with dementia or with complex health needs. Glenfield Hospital provided surgical services for a large region, and we observed staff accommodated flexibility with visiting and supported patients to maintain contact with family.

Interpretation services were available over the telephone and face to face for patients whose first language was not English. There was useful information on display in the form of posters and leaflets. Staff supported patients to access the trust website which provided access to leaflets in multiple languages including braille and easy read formats. However, when asked, staff in ward areas were not aware of any communication aids such as picture cards, they could access to support non-verbal patients on wards to communicate effectively.

Patients were supported to maintain relationships and networks that were important to them. Visiting on surgical wards was flexible and staff provided patients and their families with support. Patients and their relatives told us staff were very welcoming. Some wards had day rooms for families to sit in and wait for patients in surgery.

Patients had access to activities and the local community to promote and support their independence, health and wellbeing. For example, patients had access to specialist nurses within the community to support them pre- and post-surgery. Each surgical speciality had specific post-surgical support. Patients who underwent cardiac surgery were referred a rehabilitation programme. They were provided with individualised exercise plans, education and healthy lifestyle support, input from allied health professionals, pain management and wound management support.

People were encouraged and appropriately supported to maintain their independence. We saw patients were supported to do what they felt able post-operatively. Holistic support was put in place to support patients to recovery and increase their independence before discharge. Patients told us they were assessed and regularly seen by the physiotherapy team to get them up and moving post-surgery. Patients told us they were encouraging and were helped building their confidence to mobilise and recover.

Specialities we assessed 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.

Patient needs, views, wishes and comfort were a priority and staff quickly anticipated these to avoid any preventable discomfort, concern of distress. All staff were aware of the emotional impact of undergoing surgery. Staff we spoke to demonstrated empathy towards patients, and we observed staff providing reassurance to patients, so they felt safe both pre- and post-operatively. Staff took time to listen to patients and quickly respond to them when they needed something. Patients provided examples about how staff had spent time giving emotional support prior to surgery when they felt anxious.

Staff considered patients' individual care needs when planning their treatment, as reflected in the records we reviewed. Several examples demonstrated this approach, including adjusting the order of the operating list, and seeking additional support from learning disabilities team.

Emergency bells were sited close to each bed, including theatre recovery, to ensure that additional and expert help could be summoned quickly. We did not observe them being used during our site assessment; however, staff knew how to call for help in an emergency.

Staff were responsive to patient’s needs. All patients had access to a call bell so they could summon help from a nurse. We observed call bells were easily accessible to patients and staff responded to them in a timely manner. Staff were generally visible to patients and patients were able to ask any questions or ask for help when they needed it. We observed staff being empathic, kind and responsive in their communication. Patients told us staff generally responded quickly when they needed something such as pain relief or information about their care.

A bay tagging system was in place. For example, where there were patients with high dependency needs or those at risk of falling, there was always a staff member present.

We observed patients appeared to be well cared for, clean and with access to items they might need. For example, all patients had a water jug and cup to drink from. Patients were regularly offered hot drinks. Mobility frames were in reach, and we observed patients had access to visual aids where required.

Specialities we assessed generally cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. They supported or enabled staff to deliver person-centred care. However, there was one area where staff well-being was challenged.

Patients received safe, effective and person-centred care as the service recognised and met the wellbeing needs of most staff. Patients benefited from staff who had regular opportunities to provide feedback, raise concerns and suggest ways to improve services or staff experiences. Most staff we spoke to felt supported, respected and enjoyed working within the surgical services. In general staff felt able to share concerns and feedback and felt their immediate managers and team leaders were very supportive. Staff within surgical wards we visited were mostly positive about the service they were providing, although staff being moved to different areas impacted their workload and morale.

Most doctors in training and senior medical staff we spoke to shared positive feedback about their placements and the support they had received. They valued working at Glenfield Hospital as it gave them exposure to specialist surgical procedures and the opportunity to work alongside highly skilled surgeons. However, some doctors in training working in 1 area of specialism told us they received limited exposure to theatres as their time was mostly ward based.

The trust had processes to support the well-being of staff and were embedded across surgical services at Glenfield Hospital. A well-being team provided a range of services including occupational health, counselling services and wellbeing programmes. De-briefs were used to support staff involved in unexpected patient safety events or other traumatic experiences.

Staff had access to personalised support that recognised the diversity of a workforce with proactive and reactive measures. The shared decision-making council also organised events to promote diversity, inclusion and staff connection and wellbeing. International staff we spoke to felt very supported both professionally and personally in transitioning to the UK. They considered they were given opportunities to develop skills and supported with extended leave applications to enable them to return home. Nurses we spoke to were very complimentary about how managers supported and invested in them as individuals to progress.

Managers ensured staff had access to regular team meetings. Team meeting frequency was variable but in general ward meetings were held monthly. Managers shared key updates with staff, feedback from reported incidents and mandatory training requirements were discussed.

Whilst we received positive feedback about surgical specialities we visited in general, staff working in 1 speciality expressed concern about the culture within the service. Multiple staff working within this speciality told us the culture was negative at times due to unprofessional and uncivil behaviours from some staff. There was a fear of escalating concerns and junior staff told us they were not always respected. Some staff did not consider management acted to address the concerns in a timely manner. At the time of our site assessment, we were aware there was a cultural improvement plan to address these cultural concerns. Following our site assessment, trust leaders provided assurance of further actions they had taken to address the concerns. For example, they met and wrote to all staff outlining expectations of staff behaviour, implemented behaviour contracts and issued staff with the theatre code of conduct. Service leaders also commissioned an independent externally led investigation into the culture within 1 surgical speciality, offering staff impacted by the concerns an apology. Focus groups we undertook following our site assessment provided assurance these concerns were not widespread across services.