Royal Shrewsbury 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 patients and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

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

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

Staff treated patients with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. The service promoted patients’ independence, so patients knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and well-being.

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 treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. The Friends and family test from 1 April 2025 to 28 February 2026 for inpatients revealed 82% of inpatients had very good experience.

We reviewed the NHS adult inpatient survey 2024 and found patients said staff took into account their individual needs such as religious and dietary needs and patients were able to take their medication when. The Trust scored 9.2 for meeting patients' individual needs, exceeding the national benchmark score of 8. Areas that performed particularly well and were above the national benchmark included meeting religious needs (9.2), meeting dietary needs (8.6), and meeting basic needs (8.3). The trust performed worse than the national average of 6 scoring 4.3 For the length of time patients waited to be admitted to the ward.

Staff maintained privacy, dignity and confidentiality. Privacy and dignity were audited monthly as part of Matron quality audits and were reported within the nursing quality metrics dashboards. The result in February 2026 was 100%. Patients were assessed to ensure appropriate screening for privacy and dignity was in place and used as required. Observations conducted across various medical wards confirmed that curtains and screens were closed during the delivery of personal care.

Patients and relatives consistently described staff as caring, approachable and supportive. We saw staff communicate respectfully and involve patients in care decisions. Staff were observed supporting confused and vulnerable patients in a calm and reassuring manner.

Staff introduced themselves and explained their roles. They worked collaboratively with patients and relatives to support decision-making about treatment, discharge planning and ongoing care.

We observed healthcare assistants, nurses and housekeepers interacting warmly with patients, using patients’ preferred names and ensuring people understood what was happening with their care.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Independence, choice and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

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.

Staff gave patients and those close to them emotional support when they needed it. We saw ‘thank you’ cards in ward areas praising staff for the care they had provided.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to patients. Families received regular updates when decisions had been made to withdraw active treatment. Staff told us they worked closely with chaplaincy services and faith leaders from different religions to support patients and relatives according to their wishes.

End-of-life care was delivered in line with the SWAN model. The SWAN (sign, words, actions and needs) Model is an evidence-based, compassionate approach to end-of-life and bereavement care that promotes dignity, respect, and personalised support for patients and their families. Staff described avoiding unnecessary patient moves during the last phase of life and involving specialist palliative care teams in care planning. We reviewed documentation demonstrating clear end-of-life care planning and family communication.

Bereavement support was available for families. Staff also described access to chaplaincy services and faith leaders to support patients and families according to their preferences.

Staff supported patients to be actively involved in decisions about their care. They spoke positively about the support they provided to patients with complex health needs. They described delivering care closer to home where appropriate and working with patients and families to avoid unnecessary hospital admission.

Patients were offered choices regarding meals and refreshments. Staff engaged positively with patients during meal services and used recognised systems, such as red trays and allergen alerts, to support individual nutritional needs safely.

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 felt respected, supported and valued. They felt positive and proud about working for the provider and their teams.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service. An Employee Assistance Programme was provided, offering access to a team of trained well-being and counselling practitioners to support all employees. Confidential, independent and unbiased information and guidance were made available via telephone, in writing, online and through face-to-face appointments, covering a wide range of issues.

The staff psychology service was available to provide support to teams across the Trust, including consultancy, formulation, team interventions, critical incident debriefing, reflective practice, bespoke training, and the embedding of psychological thinking.

The service’s staff sickness and absence were similar to the average for the provider. In February 2026, staff sickness absence was recorded at 6.59% across all staff groups. The most reported reason for absence was anxiety and depression, accounting for 1% of sickness rates. The service also reported a slight increase in staff turnover, which reached 10% in the 12 months preceding the inspection, with 9 staff members leaving the service in February 2026.

Bereavement support was available for staff. Following patient deaths, staff had access to bereavement resources, debrief opportunities and volunteer services to provide additional support.

We observed respectful and professional communication among staff and across multidisciplinary teams, including positive interactions with colleagues such as porters and domestic staff. These supportive and inclusive exchanges reflected a culture that valued staff well-being, fostering a psychologically safe and respectful working environment. This not only benefitted staff morale but also had a positive impact on patient experience.

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

The percentage of staff that had had an appraisal in the last 12 months was 75.8%. Managers identified the learning needs of staff and provided them with opportunities to develop their skills and knowledge.