South Warwickshire 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

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

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 inspection we rated this key question as good. At this inspection the rating remained good. This meant patients felt well-supported, cared for and treated with dignity and respect. Staff treated people with kindness, compassion and dignity.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People were supported to have choice and control over their care and staff went above and beyond what was expected to ensure people’s needs were met. The service supported staff wellbeing.

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 was exceptional at treating people with kindness, empathy and compassion and in how they respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff always treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We observed staff interacting with patients and saw they were respectful and responsive, and they provided practical and emotional support and advice when people needed it. We were told of examples where staff had gone out of their way to treat people with kindness and compassion. This included on Nicol ward at Stratford Hospital, where staff had brought clothes in from home for a homeless patient nearing the end of life, therefore promoting and respecting their dignity.

Feedback from patients and family members was consistently positive. It included that staff went out of their way to meet the needs of individuals. They supported people to understand and manage their care and treatment. Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. There was a holistic approach to care where people’s wishes, choices and priorities were central to the care they received.

One relative told us they could not have asked anymore from staff in the care of their loved one and that the SPCT nurses, medical staff and community nurses had been consistently supportive. We were told of examples where staff had gone out of their way for patients, including staff who created a beach display for a patient who was too unwell to go to the beach as they wanted. Staff on Nicol ward at Stratford hospital won the trust’s 2025 ‘going the extra mile’ (GEM) award for their end-of-life care.

We observed the interactions between staff working in different teams and across different organisations and consistently saw that staff interacted in a respectful manner and that kindness was central to all interactions.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients.

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.

Care and treatment was individualised to meet people’s needs. The service made adjustments for patients – for example, by ensuring people’s access to premises and by meeting patients’ specific communication needs. Information was available in different languages and formats when necessary.

Managers ensured that staff and patients had easy access to interpreters and/or signers as needed. There was access to a telephone interpreting service.

Patients cared for on community inpatient wards had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances. Staff made sure patients had access to food they enjoyed and liaised with catering staff to make sure this was individualised for patients being cared for at the end of life.

Staff ensured that patients had access to appropriate spiritual support. There was a chaplaincy service available with support for patients of all religions and none. We spoke with the chaplain who told us they were available for all and they could also access specific spiritual support for individual patients and their families depending on their personal beliefs and wishes.

The service was exceptional at promoting people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People were supported to have choice and control over their care and treatment decisions. Staff proactively discussed options with patients and those close to them. This included decisions about their preferred place of care at the end of life and advance care planning, where decisions about how they want to be cared for, and their priorities were recorded in advance within plans of care.

There were examples where staff worked to enable people to fulfil their wishes at the end of life. This included where staff across different teams worked together to train and support family members to administer complex treatment and care for a loved one so they could travel on a final holiday. Staff worked with legal and regulatory teams to ensure adherence to safety frameworks to balance safety while ensuring people had the freedom to choose what mattered to them.

Patients and families we spoke with told us they had sufficient information about their treatment and care to make decisions and feel involved.

The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional in how they 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 were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, such as falls or pressure ulcers and care planned for these accordingly. Daily meetings were held by the specialist palliative care team (SPCT) to review patients on their caseload and ensure those with immediate needs were prioritised.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to patients. Patients at the end of life in the community and those close to them had access to the single point of access service. Calls were assessed based on the needs of the individual and responded to appropriately. Calls relating to symptom management were responded to immediately by the rapid or urgent response community teams.

We observed the SPCT nurses working together with other services to meet the immediate needs of patients in the community. For example, we saw SPC nurses staying beyond their shift finish time to try and source an inpatient bed for a patient who was struggling to cope at home. We observed discussions with other services to find the most appropriate and immediate response to ensure the patient was safe and looked after.

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.

Feedback from staff was consistently positive about how they were treated by leaders. They told us they felt supported and valued and were able to provide high standards of care. Leaders were visible and staff told us they were approachable.

Specialist palliative care team members had access to clinical supervision from a clinical psychologist. This was provided in group and individual one-to-one sessions as required. Additional support was available from the chaplaincy service. Staff also had access to weekly mindfulness sessions.

There was a monthly multidisciplinary meeting held that included psychology, wellbeing services, freedom to speak up, organisational development, chaplaincy and equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) teams. The purpose of these meetings was to ensure that support services regularly communicated and helped to identify any trust-wide issues that may impact on staff and their ability to remain at work. The group was in the process of considering a staff support strategy. Staff had access to an employee assistance program where support could be accessed for areas such as physical and mental wellbeing and health and wellness support.

Staff sickness and absence amongst the community SPCT was higher than the trust average. However, this had been due to long-term sickness absence that was improving at the time of our inspection.