Darlington Memorial 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

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

We assessed 5 quality statements. The service treated people as individuals, with kindness, empathy and compassion. Staff promoted people’s independence and wellbeing. Staff were attentive to people’s immediate needs. The service promoted the wellbeing of their staff.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

Good: 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.

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

We observed staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed that they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it.

At all sites, safety and comfort checks, known as intentional rounding, were in place and we saw these were supported using electronic portable devices to prompt staff of each check.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. They directed patients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services.

Patients we spoke with told us staff treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them. This concurred with high satisfaction scores in the trust’s friends and family test data. They told us, ‘staff are lovely and very friendly’.

Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious 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.

Staff made some adjustments for patients, for example, by ensuring people’s access to premises and by meeting patients’ specific communication needs. Staff accessed telephone online interpretation services and British sign language signers when required.

There was a dementia nurse available for advice. We saw limited examples of dementia friendly environmental adaptations, such as coloured door surrounds, coloured toilet seats and large clocks in some rooms. However, staff we spoke with told us additional dementia clocks were being delivered to various wards across all 3 sites.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, and how to complain.

Patients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances.

Staff ensured that patients had access to appropriate spiritual support. Chaplaincy was available every day, 24 hours a day, and patients had access to a multi-faith prayer room.

Patients we spoke with told us staff introduced themselves and asked them how they would like to be addressed.

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.

Initial information captured on admission and subsequent individualised assessment templates, ensured staff had all the information they needed to promote patient independence, choice and control.

We saw ‘who I am’ documents in patient’s records designed for people with learning disabilities, autism, or long-term health conditions and used to provide doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals with key information about a person's needs.

Staff encouraged family members to participate in care giving where this was in accordance with patient wishes. They encouraged patients to change out of nightwear each day if they wished to.

Patients we spoke with told us staff always asked verbal permission prior to invasive procedures such as taking blood. Patients told us there were ‘friendly staff’, I am well looked after.’

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.

We saw staff on the wards answered call bells promptly.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, such as falls or pressure ulcers and care planned for these accordingly. Staff were able to access specialist equipment, for example, bariatric equipment, quickly when required.

Quiet rooms were available to enable privacy when patients and their families received bad news and were distressed.

Patients we spoke with told us they felt safe on the wards. They told us they did not have to wait long for pain relief when requested.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff.

Staff we spoke with at all sites told us they felt valued by both local and senior care group managers alike. Staff felt positive and proud about working in their teams.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health. For example, there was an external employee assistance programme, occupational health service, and access to the regional wellbeing hub, which offered help with mental health. The trust had provided training for some staff to become mental health first aiders.

The trust hosted health and wellbeing workshops for staff, which were well received.

Staff could complete workplace health passports to inform discussions with managers and record any adjustments required for those with disability, or long term health issues for example.

Staff who had returned from a period of sick leave had return to work interviews with their manager and a period of phased return where appropriate.

Staff were recognised for their successes within the service, for example: ‘cheers for our peers’ comments on display boards and trust ’excellence reports’.

Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported.