Northamptonshire Healthcare 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

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

The service always treated people with kindness, compassion and dignity and delivered person-centred care that reflected individual needs and preferences. Staff built positive, trusting relationships with patients, respected their privacy and involved them in decisions about their care and recovery. Patients and carers consistently described staff as kind, supportive and professional, and told us they felt listened to and valued. Staff responded promptly to people’s needs, promoted independence and choice through personalised care planning, and worked collaboratively to provide high-quality care. Staff also felt respected and supported, which contributed to a positive culture and the delivery of compassionate care.

This service scored 80 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

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 and respect.

The service always treated patients with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff also treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. We received a warm welcome at the hospital and found staff to be polite, helpful and professional throughout our inspection. We observed positive interactions between staff and patients. It was clear staff knew patients well and had developed trusting and respectful relationships with them. Staff understood patients’ individual needs, including their personal, cultural, social and religious preferences, and responded promptly to those requiring immediate support in a discreet and respectful manner.

Staff placed a strong emphasis on privacy and dignity. During our inspection, we observed staff knocking and seeking permission before entering patients’ private spaces. Staff maintained patient confidentiality and supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment and conditions. Patients were able to describe their care and treatment, future plans and the goals they were working towards as part of their recovery. Staff signposted patients to other services when appropriate, including external substance misuse support groups.

Patients were overwhelmingly positive about the care and support they received from staff. Several patients told us staff took time to talk with them and listened to their views. Patients described staff as being easy to talk to and used words such as ‘kind’, ‘professional’, ‘supportive’, ‘lovely’, ‘understanding’ and ‘good’ when describing their experiences. Carers also spoke positively about staff, referring to them as ‘good’, ‘kind’, ‘professional’, ‘polite’ and ‘warm’.

All staff we spoke with told us they would feel confident raising concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients and could do so without fear of repercussions.

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 service always treated patients as individuals and made sure their care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences. During the referral process, the multidisciplinary team considered any specific needs patients may have, including the need for mobility aids and other equipment. Ward environments were spacious and accessible for patients who used mobility aids.

Staff provided information in a range of formats to meet patients’ individual communication needs, including easy-read materials. Information and leaflets could be sourced in languages other than English, and managers ensured staff and patients had timely access to interpreters and signers when required.

Patients knew how to raise concerns or make a complaint. They could do this through one-to-one sessions with their named nurse, community meetings, with support from relatives or advocates, or through the formal complaints process. Information about patients’ rights, advocacy services, how to contact CQC, solicitors and the complaints process was clearly displayed on the wards.

The service considered patients’ cultural, religious and dietary needs. Patients could choose from meals that met the dietary requirements and preferences of different religious and ethnic groups. Staff clearly documented allergies and food intolerances and ensured relevant staff were aware of these.

Staff supported patients to access spiritual and wellbeing support in line with their preferences. Patients could access chaplains, community faith representatives and pastoral support regardless of their beliefs. Information about spiritual wellbeing services, groups and activities was displayed throughout the wards. Both hospital sites had a chapel that was accessible to all, as well as dedicated spiritual wellbeing spaces and gardens where patients and staff could spend time quietly.

The trust was developing systems to better capture chaplaincy contact. Across Berrywood Hospital during the previous 6 months, chaplaincy was in contact with approximately 40% of the 105 inpatients at any one time, through a combination of 1:1 support and group activities. Examples of group activities included a weekly Christian service at the chapel; a monthly pop up café “Action for happiness”, as well as weekly informal drop ins for a chat.

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.

The service always supported patients to maintain their independence, choice and control. Staff encouraged patients to be as independent as possible and care plans were personalised to reflect patients’ individual goals, aspirations and recovery objectives. This helped patients to take an active role in planning and managing their care.

Patients were well informed about their rights, whether they were informal patients or detained under the Mental Health Act. Staff took time to explain patients’ rights in ways they could understand, repeating information when necessary and providing it in accessible formats where appropriate. Patients told us staff explained their rights clearly and in a way they understood.

Patients were actively involved in decisions about their care and treatment. They told us their views were discussed during multidisciplinary ward rounds and that they had regular one-to-one time with their named nurse to review their care plans, discuss their wellbeing and raise any concerns or preferences.

The service provided opportunities for patients to have a voice in how the wards operated. Patients were encouraged to attend regular community meetings, which followed structured agendas and included discussions about how people were feeling, what was working well, areas for improvement, maintenance issues and suggestions for activities. This enabled patients to contribute to decisions about their care and daily lives on the wards.

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.

The service always listened to and understood patients’ needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s immediate needs and acted to minimise discomfort, concern and distress. Patients had comprehensive risk assessments and care plans that reflected their individual health needs and risks. For example, staff identified patients living with diabetes and ensured care plans clearly set out monitoring requirements, target blood glucose levels and the actions staff should take if levels were too low or too high. This helped ensure patients received prompt and appropriate support when needed.

Staff reviewed and updated individual risk assessments routinely and whenever new or emerging risks were identified. Patients had positive behaviour support plans in place, which guided staff in responding to individual needs and behaviours. Staff used de-escalation techniques and strategies identified within these plans to reduce the need for restrictive interventions and support patients safely when they became distressed.

Staff recorded allergies, sensitivities and other significant risks on the electronic records system, ensuring this information was readily available to all staff involved in patients’ care, supporting a consistent approach to managing risks.

Patients and relatives told us staff were readily available when support was needed. During our assessment, we observed staff responding promptly to patient requests and providing reassurance and assistance in a respectful and timely way. This reflected feedback we received from patients and carers, that staff were approachable and responsive to their needs.

The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service always cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and was exceptional at supporting and enabling staff to always deliver person-centred care.

The service always supported staff wellbeing, development and professional growth. Staff told us they felt respected, supported and valued within their roles. They were positive about the way teams worked together and shared a commitment to providing high-quality care for patients. Staff described feeling proud to work at the trust and valued the support available to them.

The multidisciplinary team worked collaboratively to support patients’ recovery and progress. Staff spoke positively about the organisation and the opportunities available for career development. Managers ensured staff received annual appraisals, which included discussions about personal and professional development, training needs, areas of interest and future career aspirations.

The trust supported staff to develop their skills, knowledge and experience. Staff described opportunities for training, promotion and secondments. We spoke with several staff who had progressed into higher banded roles within the organisation. One staff member told us they had started as a healthcare support worker and, with support from the trust, had completed nurse training and progressed into a senior clinical role. The trust also offered clinical and non-clinical apprenticeship opportunities, enabling staff to gain qualifications while working.

Managers supported staff wellbeing and maintained appropriate contact with staff who were absent from work. Staff told us managers were understanding of individual circumstances and offered flexible working arrangements where possible. For example, one staff member described how their manager had adapted their working pattern to support caring responsibilities. Managers also referred staff to occupational health services when additional support was needed, and staff returning from long-term absence were supported through agreed phased returns to work.

Staff survey results for 2025–2026 reflected the positive culture we observed during the inspection. Staff reported positively on themes including compassion and inclusion, teamwork and engagement. The provider also recognised staff achievements through trust awards and the THRIVE award scheme, which enabled patients and carers to nominate staff who had made a positive difference to their care and experience. The THRIVE strategy stands for 6 strategic priorities: technology; healthy communities; responsive; including everyone; valuing our people and efficient and effective.