Blackpool Victoria 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 the rating has remained good.

The service involved people and treated them 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.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.

Staff demonstrated consistently positive attitudes and behaviours in their interactions with patients. They were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing timely help, emotional support and advice. Staff also supported patients to understand and manage their care and treatment. When appropriate, they signposted patients to other services and, where needed, helped them to access those services.

Patients said staff treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them. Patients also shared their praise for their caring nature while being under pressure while the wards were full of patients.

We saw that privacy screens were available for any additional patients being cared for on the Acute Medical Unit (AMU) ward.

We observed positive and caring interactions between staff and their patients and their relatives who used the service.

The trust shared their Friends and Family Test satisfaction rates for date range 1 October 2025 to 31 October 2025, for medicine the overall satisfaction rates were 96.22% out of 1960 responses. The trust also utilise volunteers called ‘The Listeners’, The Listeners attended several inpatient and outpatient areas, speaking to patients directly about their experience, care and the treatment they have received. Surveys allowed the trust to collect live, real-time feedback which provided opportunity for action when concerns or positive feedback were raised.

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 made a range of adjustments to support patients. For example, the trust ensured people could access the premises and that their individual communication needs were met. We observed a personalised communication passport in one care file, and staff also supported the use of the ‘This Is Me’ leaflet for patients living with dementia, experiencing delirium, or facing other communication difficulties.

New signage had been installed across the trust, and a co‑production working group was focusing on improving the environment for patients with visual impairments. This work was informed by feedback from people with lived experience to ensure changes were meaningful and accessible. Staff and patients had access to interpretation and language translation services, including support for translating documents. British Sign Language interpreters were also available on request. In addition, Braille and easy‑read formats could be provided, as well as hearing loops for people with hearing impairments. Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, how to complain information was visible on all the wards visited.

The hospital had a multi faith chaplaincy service and a bereavement service which staff could access to provide support to patients and their relatives.

Staff understood the emotional and social impact that a person’s care, treatment or condition had on their wellbeing and on those close to them. Family members fed back the support staff had provided them

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 made sure patients and those close to them understood their care and treatment. Patients we spoke with during our assessment understood their treatment plans and were involved in decision making about their care.

Staff spoke with patients, families and carers in a way they could understand, using communication aids where necessary.

Patients and their families could give feedback on the service and their treatment, and staff supported them to do this.

Patients on the medical wards felt happy with their care and were offered refreshments appropriately. The patients also spoke highly of the housekeeping team. Patient feedback was mixed in relation to food provision. Some described it as excellent, and others felt it could be improved.

Information on how to provide feedback was displayed on noticeboards across the medical wards.

Patients gave positive feedback about the service. Thank you cards from patients and their families were displayed on the wards we visited.

During our assessment we observed appropriate equipment such as hoists and stand aids available to help staff promote independence and mobility.

The trust had learning disabilities champions in post who specifically promoted individualised care and reasonable adjustments. The trust had a dedicated Learning Disability Lead Nurse. There were hospital passports in use for patients with a learning disability and neurodevelopmental needs and the trust worked with the community learning disability team who liaised closely with inpatients or outpatients to discuss and organise reasonable adjustments.

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. We saw staff interact with patients who were agitated and confused in a calm and caring manner.

We observed good examples of staff being alert to patients’ needs and offering immediate intervention, support and help. We observed intentional rounding, and staff supporting patients through mealtimes. Call buzzers were answered swiftly, and equipment was readily available for staff to use.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to patients. Wards used NEWS2 to assess deterioration, wellbeing and pain scores formed part of this.

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-centred care.

Staff told us they felt positive and proud about working for the service and their team, they felt respected, supported and valued.

The trust had a wellbeing centre which provided support to help staff manage their own health and wellbeing while caring for others. This included access to an Employee Assistance Programme, health and wellbeing initiatives delivered through awareness programmes, and support such as resilience training and wellbeing conversations.

The Trust’s 5-year strategy 2022-2027 had their ‘Our People Plan’ as a focal point in the strategy.

Trust wide data as of October 2025 showed low staff turnover rates of 11% which was just below the trust target of 12%. The service had low sickness rates of 3% among medical staff, and 6% among nursing staff.

Staff we spoke to who were relatively new to the service shared their positive induction process experience and the support available from their peers.