St Richard's 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 the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment this key question was not rated. At this assessment the rating was good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved partners in their care.

Women received care that was person‑centred and were given information and advice about their health, prenatal and postnatal care. Women told us during the assessment that they felt well supported by the multi-disciplinary team and felt they were involved in the assessment of their needs.

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 always treated women with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Women and their families we spoke with felt they were treated with kindness, compassion, and dignity. During the assessment, we observed midwives taking time to interact with women and those close to them in a respectful and considerate way. Women staff listened to them and communicated with them appropriately.

Staff maintained women's privacy and dignity by asking for permission before entering bed spaces and drawing curtains around beds when they attended. They offered chaperones to women having intimate examinations.

Women told us, “The midwives were amazing”, “Everyone was friendly”, “I am happy with my care” and “From start to finish the wonderful staff at St Richard’s made our whole experience so special. Kind caring patient and so knowledgeable honestly couldn’t ask for more”.

The service received positive feedback from the women and their families who used it. Feedback from women and their families was gained through the friends and family test (FFT) and the birth stories service.

Patient experience audits were reviewed by matrons across maternity services. Feedback showed that women and their families consistently described staff at all levels as kind, supportive, professional and compassionate.

We reviewed the latest Maternity survey 2025, we saw that when women were asked “Before you were induced, were you given appropriate information and advice on the risks associated with an induced labour?”, the service scored 6.7, which was below the national average of 7.6, when compared to all other trusts in England. Women were asked if they felt that healthcare professionals did everything they could to help manage your pain in hospital after the birth. The service scored 8.0, which was above the national trust average of 7.6.

When women were asked if they were treated with kindness and compassion during labour and birth the services scored 9.3, which was above the national trust average of 9.0. When women were asked about their post-natal care they received, were they treated with kindness the service scored 8.7, which was above the national trust average of 8.4.

Feedback was used to form reflective practice with maternity staff and for professional development. Staff achievements were shared, and we saw examples where staff had gone above and beyond to support women during their birthing experiences.

The service worked closely and had positive relationships with the local Maternity and Neonatal Voices partnership (MNVP). The MNVP engaged regularly with leaders to ensure voices of women were heard and feedback was passed on.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated women as individuals and made sure women’s care, support and treatment met women’s needs and preferences. They took account of women’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Women’s individual needs and preferences were understood, and this was reflected in the care, treatment and support they received during their pregnancy and birthing journey. Staff were understanding and had a non-judgmental attitude when caring for or discussing women with mental health needs.

Emotional support and advice to women was evident from talking to women during the assessment and from reviewing feedback and thank you emails and letters received from women. Staff were reported to be readily available to women. Staff listened and were visible on the unit. For example, the friends and family test provided feedback from women and their families who attended the service.

The findings of the Maternity survey 2025 showed when women were asked if a midwife asked about their mental health, the service scored 9.6, which was above the national trust average for England. Women were also asked if they were given information about any changes they might experience to their mental health after having a baby, the service scored 7.5, which was above the national trust average of 7.4.

The service offered support for women from black and south Asian backgrounds to access antenatal results and choices counselling (ARC). This was because women from a black and south Asian background were less likely to access mental health services.

The trust had begun cultural improvement work to address staff attitudes and behaviours, and senior leaders had completed perinatal culture and leadership training. This supported kindness and compassion during labour and delivery, improved women’s experiences, and promoted safer, more respectful care.

Maternity and neonatal voice partnership (MNVP) used various methods to engage with women using maternity services. The MNVP had successfully procured finance to purchase reclining chairs for partners staying overnight. This meant partners could comfortably stay and support women as well as also being able to establish a bond with baby.

The service had a comprehensive 7-day bereavement service across all 4 maternity sites to make sure there was consistent support for women and their families experiencing pregnancy loss or neonatal death.

However, during the inspection staff reported challenges in accessing translation services for women. Interpreters were not available for all required languages. Following our onsite inspection the trust reported the service was able to book face to face interpreters and a standard operating procedure (SOP) had been developed to make the process clearer for staff. The SOP was waiting for the final sign off by the trust’s director of clinical outcomes and effectiveness prior to publication and availability to staff.

Lack of access to interpreting services led to misunderstandings, reduced involvement in decision making, and increased the risk of unsafe or delayed care.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted women’s independence, so women knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Women said that they had choice and control over their own care. We observed staff who supported and involved women in assessments and encouraged them to make decisions about their care.

We reviewed the Maternity survey 2025, women were also asked if they felt that if their partner or someone else close to them were involved in their care during labour and birth were they able to be involved as much as they wanted. The trust scored 9.8, which was above the national trust average of 9.5. When asked about their stay in hospital, if their partner or someone else close to you was involved in your care, were they able to stay with you as much as you wanted. The trust scored 9.0, which was above the national trust average of 7.4.

Feedback given in the family and friends feedback for the service said, “Everything was discussed so I could make informed choices, and they were completely respectful of the ones I made”.

Women and their families could give feedback on the service and their treatment, and staff supported them to do this as well as maintain relationships that were important to them, for example, the service had introduced ‘hope boxes’ for mothers where the local authority was planning a separation at birth. Hope boxes included blankets, teddy and memory cards, to support the mother’s needs.

We scored the service as 3. The service listened to and understood women’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to women’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Maternity staff were supportive and listened to women’s needs. The service offered a birth reflections service, which gave women and their families the opportunity to talk about their personal birth experiences.

Bereavement midwives offered counselling to women who had experienced pregnancy loss under 24 weeks. Mother’s over 24 weeks mothers could choose between the bereavement midwife and perinatal mental health team (PMHT). Women and their families could access the bereavement team for as long as they required support and the team supported women during any future pregnancies.

The trust had worked with patient safety specialists to provide meaningful and compassionate support to families through a bespoke supervision programme following the loss of their baby.

Staff acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress and they listened to and understood women’s needs, views and wishes. However, staff on the postnatal ward told us they felt at times due to staffing issues and the delays within flow and discharge in the postnatal area, women often waited too long for support, pain relief and medicines.

We scored the service as 3. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Most staff we spoke to were positive and proud to work at St Richard’s Hospital. They felt valued by all levels of leadership and were positive of the maternity senior leadership team.

Staff told us they were able to develop professionally, and student midwives were very much part of the team.

The leadership team completed perinatal culture work to improve staff wellbeing, with targeted action plans to improve cultural challenges. The service launched an app for staff to improve staff experience within the workplace alongside improving care for women.

Through the app, staff were able to submit ideas for improving the service, discuss within teams and work collaboratively, to boost staff morale and well-being.

Professional Midwifery Advocates (PMA) provided pastural support and restorative supervision to staff. All midwives were allocated a PMA, and support was also offered to maternity support workers.

Newly registered staff told us managers always protected their supernumerary status. This meant they were extra to the required staffing, which supported their training and development needs.

However, some staff told us staffing was often a challenge on Tangmere ward and there were some staff who were not always supportive or kind to junior midwives.