Charing Cross 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

We looked for evidence that people were always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We checked that people’s privacy and dignity was respected, that they understood that they and their experience of how 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question outstanding. At this assessment the rating changed to good.

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 took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

Patients, their families, and carers were positive about their interactions with staff and the treatment they received. All reported that staff were welcoming and friendly, and that they were treated with compassion and kindness. People felt communication from staff was good, with clear information provided on care options and treatment plans.

We observed compassionate care being provided to patients. Staff were discreet and responsive when caring for patients. Staff took time to interact with patients and those close to them in a respectful and considerate way. We observed kind, caring interactions between patients and staff. Staff explained to patients what they were doing when providing care and treatment. We saw staff interact with patients who were living with dementia in a calm and caring manner.

During consultations with nursing or medical staff, curtains and doors were closed which ensured privacy for patients.

There was a culture of kindness and respect between colleagues. Staff collaborated with other experienced colleagues to provide support and treatment for patients.

The Family and Friends test for the previous 12 months showed that 95% of respondents were positive about the care received, with over a third of all patients, families and friends completing the survey.

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 understood and respected the personal, cultural, social and religious needs of patients and how they may relate to care needs. Wards were visited by volunteers from the hospital chaplaincy. We observed a volunteer speaking with patients and noted a positive interaction between them and the patient.

We observed staff providing individualised care according to both personal choice and risk assessments having involved the service user and their families in these conversations. Information was available in a varied format and staff were able to access interpreters both on the phone and in person when they needed to. Posters were present on the ward for patients to access information in different languages.

The service used’ this is me’ booklets for anyone living with dementia or experiencing delirium or other communication difficulties, to record details about a patient who could not easily share information about themselves, such as their preferences and routines and people important to them.

During the assessment we observed one patient with protected characteristics was permitted to have their therapy dog stay with them while they were in hospital.

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 made sure patients and those close to them understood their care and treatment. Patients and their families we spoke with during the 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 on the medical wards felt happy with their care and were offered refreshments appropriately. Patient feedback was mixed in relation to food provision. Some described it as excellent, and others felt it could be improved.

Patients and their families could give feedback on the service, and their treatment and staff supported them to do this. Information on how to provide feedback was displayed on notice boards 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.

The trust had a learning disabilities (LD) team who ensured that patients with learning disabilities were reviewed each day. There was a flagging system within patient records to ensure staff were aware of patients in their care who had a learning disability, and the trust used hospital passports to understand and share the details of an individual’s learning disability and specific health care needs.

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.

Staff gave patients and those close to them help, emotional support and advice when they needed it. All contact between staff and people was conducted professionally, sensitively and in a way which respected confidentiality and the emotional wellbeing of both patients and their relatives and carers.

Staff we spoke with understood the emotional and social impact that a person’s care, treatment, or condition had on their wellbeing and on those close to them. Staff supported and involved patients, families, and carers to understand their condition and make decisions about their care and treatment. Staff spoke with people in a way they could understand, using communication aids where necessary.

We observed 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.

Wards used NEWS2 to assess deterioration, wellbeing and pain scores formed part of this. A non-verbal tool was also available for patients who could not tell staff if they were in pain

Most patients we spoke with commented they could access their call bell and use it to alert staff. Staff generally responded quickly when call bells were used and if there was a delay patients told us staff explained why. Patients told us they were offered regular pain relief and could request more pain relief if they were in pain, and that this was administered quickly.

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-centred care.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued. All staff we spoke with felt positive and proud about working for the provider and their team.

Staff felt very well supported by local managers and knew they could raise concerns and provide feedback if required. Staff had regular team meetings with local managers who were aware of the need to support colleagues and advocate on their behalf.

There was a wellbeing hub for staff which was well advertised in multiple places across the hospital. Staff had access to a variety of wellbeing services such as chaplaincy service, physical wellbeing support with a physiotherapy service, occupational therapy, and a stop smoking service. There were mental health wellbeing services providing stress management, staff psychology service, counselling, wellbeing hubs, access to NHS digital applications and national support services. Financial wellbeing services were available to staff with cost-of-living advice, money saving tips, support accessing food banks, NHS discounts, salary sacrifice, and opportunities to access financial support. Flexible working, a pension scheme and advice service were also available.