Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust

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. People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

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

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.

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. The service used feedback methods such as the NHS Family Friends Test survey to gain people’s feedback about their experiences of the service. The sample we were provided with, dated from the previous 12 months, showed largely positive results. For example, Blandford Community Hospital’s MIU received 12 responses with a 92% positive feedback score between April 2025 and March 2026. Whilst Victoria Hospital’s MIU had received 137 responses with a 97% positive feedback score during the same reporting period. Positive themes included service efficiency with short waiting times and being treated with kindness. Themes and trends had been identified by the service, and these had been considered within the service development plan. Some people noted improvements were required in relation to staff attitude and lack of availability of treatment to support their immediate needs. As a result, staff told us there were now processes to give people clearer communication in relation to the remit of the service as well as expected assessment and treatment timeframes upon check-in at reception.

Arrangements were in place to promote people’s privacy, such as through confidential consulting rooms, modesty covers and privacy screens within the treatment room. Staff we spoke with understood Gillick competency (a legal principle used to determine whether a child under the age of 16 has the maturity, intelligence, and understanding to consent to their own medical treatment without parental knowledge or permission) and there was a process to ensure young adults had control over their own privacy and the amount of parental involvement in managing their care and support.

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. Peoples’ personal, cultural, social, religious and equality characteristics needs were understood and met to enable them to be fully involved in their care. Records documented reasonable adjustments which were accessible to clinicians. The service demonstrated a commitment to treating people as individuals, respecting their treatment preferences, and making reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. Staff carried out risk assessments to identify hazards before planning people’s care and treatment. These included checks for allergies, mobility needs and clinical risks.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Staff recognised people’s needs to have access to, and links with, their advocacy and support networks in the community and they supported people to do this.

Staff were trained to complete the role of chaperone and information was available to make people aware they could request a chaperone for any care contact when needed. Posters and leaflets about common conditions and treatment options relevant to the MIU were available at both sites we visited.

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. There was a system for assessment triage which ensured people with immediate needs had access to services. Staff we spoke with knew the process for referral to emergency support, including mental health crisis teams. The service demonstrated how people were able to access care for their immediate needs, including reasonable adjustments to assist them in this process. Information on people’s immediate needs was recorded on the person’s clinical records, so they do not need to be asked or requested on each occasion.

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

Staff told us they felt respected, supported and valued. Leaders had taken steps to recognise and meet the wellbeing needs of staff, which included the necessary resources and facilities for safe working, such as regular breaks and rest areas. Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service and mental health first aiders. Appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported. Education sessions were held regularly as part of a Trust forum to support the continuous professional development and learning needs of staff working across the MIUs, such as radiology interpretation of injuries, prescribing and updates to national guidelines. The service had a dedicated professional nurse advocate role which offered restorative clinical supervision and a programme of drop-in sessions to assist staff with concerns carrying out their roles effectively. The service carried out annual staff surveys and reviewed changes to feedback themes and trends. We noted 8 out of 10 of the service’s MIU staff feedback indicators had scored above the Trust’s average for 2025-2026, demonstrating an overall positive environment for supporting staff wellbeing and enablement. Total service feedback themes scored 69% in comparison with the Trust average of 67%. The combined MIU score for staff engagement was 69% against the Trust score of 68%, whilst staff morale scored 66% for MIU staff against the Trust score of 59%. Although the service’s MIUs scored consistently higher in all but two of the total feedback themes, results across the service and Trust largely declined compared to the previous feedback survey. Leaders told us the service were developing an action plan to review and improve results.

Staff were offered an employee assistance program (EAP), had access mental health first aiders, staff wellbeing forums and occupational health services where required.