Queen's Medical Centre

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

Find out what we look at when we assess this area in our information about our new Single assessment framework.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard of care. The service treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff were discreet and responsive when caring for patients. Staff took the time to understand the needs of the patients and interact with patients and those close to them in a respectful and considerate way. 

Patients and relatives were assured that information about them was treated confidentially, and they knew that staff respected their privacy. Staff made sure conversations were not overheard; all conversations were behind curtains round the bed space or closed doors. We observed interactions between patients and staff where staff ensured patients’ dignity was maintained.

We observed staff introducing themselves and informing patients of what they were going to do, such as carrying out observations.

Staff were supportive to each other and offering help with the patients’ behaviours.

Patients said staff treated them well and with kindness. We observed staff speaking politely and with respect to patients and relatives. One patient on SDEC told us that, “Staff are really nice and very helpful.”

The service used a “This is me” booklet and initial assessment and meetings with relatives were fundamental in identifying patients’ needs. 

Patients and relatives told us they could speak with doctors and nurses and were aware of the plans for their care. 

Visiting hours for relatives were flexible for patients at end of life, families could stay overnight when required. 

Staff from the virtual ward told us that when they visit patient in their own homes, they would often refer patients to other services and charities that could offer support with cleaning, shopping and access to furniture to support their needs.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

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 demonstrated a person-centred approach to care, taking time to understand what mattered most to everyone. Patients were encouraged to share personal information and likes and dislikes at point of admission. The information enabled staff to learn how patients preferred to be addressed, details about their family life, pets, treasured possessions, and religious or cultural beliefs. This information was actively used to tailor care and treatment plans to each patient’s unique needs and preferences.

Staff used the ‘Forget Me Not’ symbol on patient information boards at nurse stations to discreetly identify individuals living with dementia, memory problems, or complex communication needs. This served as a gentle visual cue to remind staff to offer additional reassurance, time, and support to these patients.

Patient care records demonstrated that care plans were individualised and person centred, reflecting each patient’s values, and preferred ways of receiving care.

One patient on the acute stroke unit told us “I am here because I had a stroke, it was really frightening, but the staff have been amazing, they have explained everything to me.

Ward environments were personalised to reflect each speciality. Noticeboards were colourful, engaging, and provided information tailored to support patients, relatives, and staff. We observed posters reminding staff, and reassuring patients that “everyone should be seen and treated as an individual.”

Staff communicated effectively with patients using clear and accessible language and provided examples of how they used communication aids to meet individual needs. They had access to a full range of interpretation services to support patients whose first language was not English or who used alternative communication methods.

Staff also provided positive examples of meeting patients’ dietary, nutritional, and cultural requirements, confirming that specific foods could be ordered to respect patient’s beliefs and or preferences.

Spiritual needs were met sensitively. The service’s chaplain regularly visited wards, providing support to patients, relatives, and staff regardless of faith or background.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service 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 make informed decisions about their own care, treatment, and wellbeing.

Patients we spoke with confirmed they had agreed to and provided consent for their care and treatment. Staff explained care and treatment options in a way that helped patients understand and make informed choices. Most patients told us they felt comfortable asking questions about their treatment plan.

However, some patients said they were not kept up to date on planned discharge arrangements. 

Patients expressed satisfaction with the quality and choice of meals provided. They said staff respected their preferences and dietary needs, which contributed positively to their sense of choice and well-being.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

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.

Staff we spoke with told us the service recognised that preventing patients’ deconditioning while in hospital was everyone’s responsibility. Deconditioning is the physical, functional, and psychological decline of the body resulting from prolonged inactivity, bed rest, or a sedentary lifestyle. Sometimes referred to the “Use it or lose it” principle, it leads to rapid muscle wasting, joint stiffness and reduced cardiovascular strength, mood.

During our inspection, we observed a physiotherapy assessment of patients requiring rehabilitation and reviewing patient’s medical history and reason for admission. Staff treated the patients as an individual and assessed their needs holistically. 

The Trust had a specialist pain team that supported the service, who would see patients with complex pain needs. The pain team specialised in evaluating, diagnosing, and treating patients with acute and chronic pain.

We saw that patients were treated with kindness and compassion. We observed staff working closely with patients requiring assistance with mobility and equipment needs.

We observed a morning nursing handover where staff demonstrated a clear understanding of patient’s current needs and prioritised actions to ensure these were met without delay.

Patients who required urgent medical attention were prioritised appropriately during ward rounds. Patient care records confirmed that prompt reviews were undertaken by the medical team when required. We observed a multidisciplinary hand over and saw examples of differing staff reviewing specific risks, plans of care and discussing potential discharge.

Staff told us they were responsive to changes in patient condition and immediate needs. Ward managers initiated one to one observation where necessary, staff were assigned to observe a bay of cohorted patients to maintain patient safety due to falls risks or confusion. Staff acknowledged this could be challenging at times due to staffing pressures and the high number of patients requiring enhanced observations.

We observed effective escalation and prompt clinical response. The clinical team could request assistance from security to support if they required assistance with restraint. We observed security staff attend the acute floor to assist with a patient requiring transfer for a diagnostic test. Security staff were trained in conflict resolution including safe restraint.

Appropriate referrals were made to specialist teams when required, including mental health, palliative care, dietetics, and occupational and physiotherapy services. We observed therapists reviewing patients, and staff confirmed that therapy teams attended daily to assess, support, and plan care for patients.

The Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) team operated under a clear prioritisation framework.

Staff were able to refer patients for mental health assessments by the mental health liaison team that supported the service, which was described as supportive.

Patients were able to access and use their call bells to alert staff when they required assistance. We observed staff responding to call bells in a timely manner.

Staff assessed and monitored patients regularly for pain and provided analgesia in a timely and appropriate way. Documentation confirmed that pain assessments were recorded accurately.

Staff from the virtual ward told us that when they visit patients in their own homes, they would often refer patient to other services and charities that could offer support with cleaning, shopping and access to furniture to support their needs.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centered care.

The culture on wards we visited was overall positive. Multidisciplinary working was embedded and respectful in its approach. Staff reported no concerns around diversity and acknowledged the hospital was demographically a diverse place both for staff and patients. Feedback to senior leaders took place regularly.

Engagement and listening events were held to develop understanding of the issues and inform priority actions.

The senior service team complete walk rounds of clinical areas to gain a better understanding of some of the issues particularly in relation to the environment.

Staff could access information about managing their wellbeing via the service intranet. The intranet had a dedicated staff wellbeing page. Wellbeing initiatives were available to staff. Staff could access information about smoking cessation, nutrition, mental health on the service’s intranet. The service held wellbeing events including grief awareness week and menopause awareness week. There were walking and running groups. Support for staff observing Ramadan to provide them with meals.

Ward managers and matrons were visible and approachable, contributing to a culture where everyone worked well together to achieve the best outcomes for patients.

All staff received annual appraisals to review performance, identify development needs, and discuss career goals. Staff were offered opportunities for further learning and skills development; however, some healthcare support workers reported limited access to additional training beyond mandatory requirements.

There were Daisy awards for nurses and Tulip awards for health care assistants awarded monthly. The DAISY (Diseases Attacking the Immune System) Award is an international recognition program that honours and celebrates the skilful, compassionate care nurses provide every day. Each DAISY Award is recognised at a public ceremony in the nurse’s ward or department, where they receive a certificate, a DAISY Award pin, and a hand-carved stone sculpture entitled A Healer’s Touch.

The TULIP (Touching Unique Lives in Practice) Award recognises Health Care Assistants, Clinical Support Workers, Operation Department Operatives ODPs and Nursing Associates in a similar way. 

Each TULIP Award is recognised at a small ceremony in the staff members ward or department with a certificate, a TULIP Award pin and a set of artificial blue tulips.

The service had a ‘Your NUH wellbeing programme’ which provided staff with financial wellbeing support, mental health and physical health support.

There was a free, confidential helpline for all staff available where staff could receive up to 6 counselling sessions free of charge.

The service was a mindful employer and had signed the ‘Time to Change Pledge’, which is a commitment towards supporting mental health in the workplace.

Staff could attend for a number of beauty wellbeing therapies known as orange blossom therapy sessions which are holistic wellness and aromatherapy practices that use orange blossom (neroli) extracts to reduce stress, ease anxiety, and promote relaxation. 

There was a weekly Friday staff bulletin to nursing and allied health professions from the chief nurse called ‘The Friday night takeaway” which provided updates to staff.