East Cheshire NHS 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. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating has remained as good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness and were focused on delivering high quality care to patients. Staff understood the individual needs of their patients, their potential risks and how these can be managed or mitigated. They also ensured that patients and carers understood the care and treatment being provided and involved them in care plans and risk assessments. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

Patients’ privacy and dignity were maintained throughout treatment. Patients thought the teams were accessible and supportive. Teams regularly received feedback from patients, and responses were positive.

The service understood their local population and the unique needs of each community.

Staff told us they felt supported by leaders; they were proud of the teams they worked in. Flexible working was available to staff.

Staff had access to IT equipment that could be used remotely and safely while out in the community.

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.

We spoke to 4 patients and 4 parents and observed patients care. Staff interacted well with patients who didn’t use words and they were able to recognise staff with smiles and gestures. Parents were very complimentary about the staff who cared for children and young people, and they said staff treated them and parents with kindness and compassion. Parents described the service as ‘amazing’ and ‘fantastic.’

Staff were enthusiastic about the care they were providing to patients. We observed staff attitudes and behaviours towards patients. Staff were considerate, respectful, and responsive in supporting their patients, and provided help and advice where appropriate in age-appropriate language. Staff ensured that patients and parents understood how to manage their treatment. For example, in the audiology department staff explained to the patient the tests they were doing and how playing a game helped the test results. In addition, the parent was advised how the consultant in the ear, nose and throat (ENT) clinic would use the results to provide further advice on treatment.

Staff understood the individual needs of patients, and considered their social needs, as well as their physical health. We also saw evidence of staff referring patients to other services where appropriate. In the complex care team, we saw how staff supported the delivery of equipment to patients who lived in rural areas, so equipment stocks were maintained.

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.

The parents we spoke to felt involved in the care plans developed in partnership with staff, as not all children and young people were able to contribute to their care plans. Parents told us how staff would discuss their treatment options and felt that staff would make adaptations if required to care plans. Parents could contact the teams for advice and queries, and the responses from staff were prompt.

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.

We observed staff interactions with patients and saw staff asked for patients’ permission to carry out caring tasks. Parents told us they felt supported by the service, they felt they participated in making decisions about their children’s care. Parents told us they were able to give their opinions on their care, for example how they were to be contacted if they were not at home and attending a social event.

Staff were person centred. We saw how they discussed individual patient’s choice, to ensure that patient’s had choice and control over their care and treatment.

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 demonstrated an understanding of individual needs, and how patients and parents could manage their individual risks, and how staff could help to mitigate and manage these. These included following infection control products during social activities, using equipment to prevent pressure ulcers and when giving patients medicines.

Parents told us that they could contact teams during working hours and for support out of hours for the complex care team. Parents told us their queries and requests were responded to promptly. We observed two assessments and home visits, where staff took an individual approach to each patient, completing holistic assessments of patients. For example, in the audiology clinic we observed that staff supported a young child to be less anxious about their hearing test, introduced play into the assessment, and explained each part of the process, which helped a positive outcome. Staff routinely advised parents on infection control, for example the risk of acquired ear infection during swimming.

Where appropriate, staff offered referrals to patients. Parents we spoke with confirmed they had been offered referrals for additional support, for example a carers assessment by the local authority. Parents found these referrals beneficial, such as accessing assessments for additional support equipment.

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

Staff told us that they felt supported, respected and valued by the leaders and management. They were proud of the teams they worked in and felt there was a positive culture within the trust. Managers recognised staff success through initiatives such as ‘Thank You Thursday,’ where staff who went above and beyond for patients could be recognised.

Managers supported staff to access adjustments to support their work life balance, and staff spoke positively about their access to occupational health services within the trust.

Staff morale was positive throughout the teams that we visited. The main areas of improvement staff identified was staffing and the issues they were having was with the booking of appointments for assessment since a new system had been introduced. This issue was identified by managers and recorded within the service and Trust risk registers.