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.

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

We looked for evidence that people were always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We checked that people's privacy and dignity were respected and that they understood that their views, experiences, and the way they were treated and supported mattered. We also looked for evidence that every effort was made to take people’s wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

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 service did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff did not always treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff demonstrated positive attitudes and behaviours in their interactions with patients. They were 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.

However, we did observe some patients who were being cared for in temporary escalation spaces privacy and dignity was compromised. On occasions they were observed to be examined in temporary escalation spaces. We fed this back to trust staff who took action to prevent this from happening and reminded staff of the facilities that were available for further care and treatment.

Patients said staff treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them. Patients also shared their praise for the caring nature of staff while the department was full of people and described by patients as ‘busy’.

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

Patients in the ED were generally positive about their care, with thank-you cards displayed within the department. Over the previous 12 months, 560 Friends and Family Test responses were received, with an overall satisfaction rate of 68.57%; paediatric ED achieved 100% satisfaction from 17 responses. The Trust recognised the lower satisfaction scores within ED and was taking steps to address this. Areas for improvement identified related to reduce the time patients waited in the department and to keep patients updated about their treatment plans.

The trust also utilised volunteers called ‘The Listeners’, The Listeners attended several 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 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.

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 throughout the department.

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 that the support staff had provided them was beneficial.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Patients and those close to them were involved in care planning and decision-making, with staff communicating clearly and using communication aids where required. Feedback was actively encouraged through a range of mechanisms and used to drive service improvements, with processes in place to escalate concerns, track actions, and embed learning.

Feedback from patients and families informed improvements including increased wheelchair availability, enhanced support for patients and relatives, improved wayfinding and accessibility, and targeted initiatives for specific patient groups. The trust worked closely with patients, volunteers, community organisations, and external partners to ensure services reflected patient needs and experiences.

Appropriate equipment, including hoists and stand aids, were available to promote mobility and independence. The trust also demonstrated a strong commitment to supporting patients with learning disabilities and neurodevelopmental needs through dedicated learning disability champions, a Learning Disability Lead Nurse, hospital passports, and close partnership working with community learning disability teams to ensure reasonable adjustments were made.

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 in the paediatric and adult emergency departments were aware of, and appropriately managed specific patient risks, including falls and pressure damage, with care plans put in place to mitigate these risks. Staff effectively identified and responded to changes in patients’ conditions and escalating risks.

During the assessment, we observed staff identifying patient needs and providing timely support and intervention. Patients were appropriately supported during mealtimes, and the necessary equipment was readily available.

Staff consistently monitored for patient deterioration and responded appropriately to changing clinical risks. Both the adult and paediatric Emergency Departments used the NEWS2 framework to assess and monitor deterioration, with wellbeing and pain assessments incorporated into patient reviews.

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. They described how the teams had worked together over implementing quality improvement projects and benefits to patients.

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 5.45% which was 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.