Worthing 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.

We assessed all quality statements in this key question.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating the rating remained good. This meant women were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as 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 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. 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.

The service did not always ensure that all women were consistently treated with dignity, respect and compassion. Some women told us they did not always feel listened to and described gaps in communication and support. They said staff did not always provide clear explanations or enough time to be with women. Some women also reported that staff did not always offer sufficient support with feeding or routinely check their emotional wellbeing following birth. One woman told us she felt she had to “exaggerate reduced fetal movements” in order to be taken seriously and asked to attend. Fetal movements are crucial indicators of a baby's well-being during pregnancy, providing reassurance to expectant parents and helping to monitor the baby's health. Another woman told us she felt she was “not given enough time to ask questions”.

The service did not always protect women’s privacy and dignity. We saw staff taking observations and recording medical histories in waiting areas outside the maternity and day assessment units. This meant sensitive information could be overheard by others, which did not support confidential care.

We identified further concerns with the location of the bereavement suite, which was situated opposite a busy waiting area. This arrangement did not fully support the privacy or emotional needs of bereaved families or those using nearby clinical areas.

Leaders told us they had secured funding to relocate the maternity assessment areas to improve privacy and better meet the needs of bereaved families. However, after the inspection, the service was unable to provide evidence to confirm that funding had been secured or that plans were in place to implement any changes.

Despite these concerns, most women and families we spoke with gave positive feedback about staff. They described staff as kind, compassionate and supportive. Women told us staff listened to their concerns, responded promptly and involved them in decisions about their care, including respecting their birth preferences. Many said they felt safe and well cared for. One woman told us this experience of care was “positive and significantly better compared to her first birth experience”.

We saw that staff provided kind and compassionate care. Despite workplace pressures, we observed staff treat women and families with kindness and respect. We observed positive interactions where staff were responsive, respectful and supportive. Staff offered timely assistance where they could, reassurance and clear advice. They supported women to understand and manage their own care and the care of their babies.

Staff showed awareness of women’s individual needs. They signposted people to other services appropriately and followed safeguarding processes when required. Staff respected women’s personal, cultural, social and religious needs and usually maintained confidentiality.

The bereavement suite itself provided a calm and supportive environment. It was spacious and designed to promote comfort and dignity. It included facilities such as a kitchen area, and families could access specialist bereavement support and counselling, including ongoing support following the loss of a baby.

We reviewed the latest CQC 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 service 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

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.

Women mostly told us that they were informed about their care. Women and relatives spoke positively about the care they received. One woman told us the midwives caring for her “really explained everything” and said her midwife “made her feel very safe”. A relative described the midwives as “consistently warm, compassionate and approachable” and told us staff ensured their wife had opportunities to ask questions, which were “answered fully and thoughtfully”

Women were able to access information about their care and available support. Most women told us staff provided clear explanations about treatments, including pain relief options and feeding support. Information we reviewed showed women could access specialist bereavement counselling and ongoing support, with clear referral pathways in place.

Women had access to emotional and specialist support when needed. Staff checked on women’s emotional wellbeing and escalated concerns appropriately. Bereavement information confirmed that specialist counselling and ongoing multidisciplinary support were available following pregnancy loss.

Staff ensured women could access information in ways that met their individual needs. Staff told us they provided information leaflets in different languages to support the local population. They also described using a digital application to share information in a range of languages and accessible formats. Staff explained they showed women how to use the application and answered questions to support understanding.

However, this was not consistent for all women. Some women reported that communication was not always clear, particularly where English was not their first language.

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

Women were able to seek help and access care when required. Women told us they contacted the telephone triage service and received appropriate advice, which supported them to decide when to attend the hospital.

Most women felt able to ask for support when needed. They told us they were comfortable requesting pain relief, and staff responded appropriately. This helped women remain involved and in control of their care. Women spoke positively about the care they received. One woman told us she felt “supported and listened to by all staff”. Another woman said midwives remembered her name and “always checked in and ensured I understood what was happening”. Three women we spoke with referred to their birth plans and told us staff supported their choices and preferences during labour and birth.

Staff supported shared decision-making. Women said they received clear information about treatment options, including pain relief, which supported them to make informed choices about their care. Women were also able to exercise choice about where they received care. One woman told us they chose to give birth at Worthing Hospital based on their preferences, which meant patients were supported to make informed decisions.

However, this was not consistent for all women. One woman told us they felt they had to exaggerate their symptoms to be assessed, which showed they did not feel confident in the assessment process or in accessing care and exercising choice.

We reviewed the CQC Maternity Survey 2025. Women were asked whether their partner or someone close to them was able to be involved in their care during labour and birth as much as they wanted. The trust scored 9.8, which was above the national average of 9.5.

Women were also asked whether their partner or someone close to them was able to stay with them during their hospital stay as much as they wanted. The trust scored 9.0, which was above the national average of 7.4, indicating a more positive experience than many other trusts in England.

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

Staff identified and responded to changes in women’s needs. People told us that when they raised concerns, staff acted promptly and took appropriate action. For example, women described staff assessing concerns about their baby’s condition without delay, which provided reassurance and reduced anxiety.

Most women also told us staff responded appropriately when their clinical needs changed, including providing pain relief and escalating care when required. These actions helped reduce discomfort and ensured women felt supported. Women consistently told us they had no concern with accessing or requesting pain relief. One woman told us pain relief was “provided promptly when needed” and that “staff went above and beyond to provide support”. Another woman mentioned that she “received feeding support when required” and described her experience as “excellent”.

However, this was not consistent for all women. Some women reported delays in care and unclear communication, which caused distress and meant their needs were not always met in a timely way.

Staff were not always able to respond quickly to the needs of women. We observed delays in answering call bells on the postnatal ward due to the acuity of the ward. We escalated this to leaders following the inspection.

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 generally felt supported within their immediate teams. Staff told us they were respected, valued and supported by their line managers. They spoke positively about their teams and described strong peer support, which contributed to a positive working environment.

Demand and acuity had increased, including a rise in high-acuity patients in recent years, which placed additional pressure on staff. Workforce pressures and sickness absence continued to affect the service. However, leaders reported that the service was broadly fully recruited and had implemented actions to manage staffing risks. These included redeploying staff, escalating concerns to senior managers and using trust-wide approaches to manage demand and capacity.

The service had systems to support staff wellbeing and engagement. The service used an app-based system to gather staff feedback, which enabled staff to raise concerns and make suggestions that were escalated to leaders. Leaders also described regular listening events and staff forums to support communication and keep staff informed.

Staff had access to a range of wellbeing support, including occupational health services and a trust-wide health and wellbeing offer. Staff could also access professional midwifery advocates for confidential support, guidance and professional advice. Leaders acknowledged that staff wellbeing had been affected by ongoing scrutiny and described actions taken to support morale.

Staff also had access to monthly hypnotherapy and mini meditation sessions, and financial wellbeing webinars were available to support staff if needed.

Data showed that appraisal rates for all of maternity was 86%. Leaders told us focused work supported by human resources was ongoing with a trajectory to exceed 90% by the end of June 2026.

The service supported staff development and learning. Managers completed appraisals that included discussions about career progression. Leaders had introduced a restorative culture programme to help staff manage challenging situations and improve communication and reported early positive impact on teamwork. A restorative culture programme promotes a supportive, open environment that focuses on learning, reflection, and improvement rather than blame when issues arise. It encourages honest dialogue, accountability, and positive working relationships. The service also recognised staff contributions through engagement initiatives and feedback systems. There was evidence of workforce improvement, including reduced vacancy rates and plans for further staffing investment in line with national requirements.

Some staff told us they did not feel well supported by senior leaders and said they did not see them regularly within the service. This contrasted with senior leaders’ accounts, who described regular executive visibility through site visits, safety meetings and staff forums.