Cambridgeshire and Peterborough 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating Remains good.

This service scored 65 (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 and respect.

Some patients told us staff did not always treat them with kindness, empathy or compassion. However, we observed positive and kind interactions between staff on our visit.

Carers said staff were helpful, supportive, welcoming and open to ideas on how to best support their relative. However, 1 carer told us staff did not understand autistic behaviours.

Staff supported people to engage in activities.

Staff supported people to maintain and develop their personal goals, social skills and meet their sensory needs through various activities and tools.

Staff understood the individual needs of people, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs.

Staff followed policy to keep people’s information confidential. Information held on electronic systems was protected.

Patients spoke highly of the consultant psychiatrists.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals. One person told us they were made to feel like a patient and not a person.

Some patients told us they did not always feel involved in their care and treatment.

Patients told us the Occupational Therapy/psychology programme was compulsory, and sessions could feel ‘childish’. However, all patients who had attended the body image group spoke very positively about it.

Patients and carers told us staff did not always explain medications given to them.

However, staff within the service had a good understanding of people’s physical and mental health, their risk history and their social circumstances outside of the hospital.

Patients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances. Each patient had created their own placemat for mealtimes with happy memories on them. Patients were also able to personalise their bedrooms.

Staff ensured that patients had access to appropriate spiritual support.

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.

The provider promoted people’s independence, they balanced essential medical intervention with choice carefully.

People were provided with a variety of therapeutic and recreational activities to join, to support their skills and wellbeing. We saw a timetable of activities and groups which included creative writing, goals and planning, relaxation group, book binding, and bath bomb making. There were also themed activities around seasonal celebrations, such as snow globe and Christmas jar making.

Patients told us they were able to call family, and carers told us how their family members were updated by staff on their progress.

Patients had meal plans tailored individually by a dietician. However, patients told us they were not always supported to understand their rights.

Patients said they would like more choice for food as lots of the meals were repeated and the feedback on quality from 3 out of 4 patients was that the food was often cold.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

The provider did not always listen to or understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Patients we spoke with told us there were some staff who would sit in silence at the table during mealtimes and were not supportive, and others who made inappropriate comments. This made them feel uncomfortable. Patients did not always feel confident approaching staff with issues or concerns, 1 patient said after a community meeting they were told they were disrespectful to staff.

However, staff were aware of the specific risks related to the patient group. For example, significant changes in weight, re-feeding syndrome and the need for physical health monitoring.

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.

On the day of our visit many staff were at a team building day that was planned. Staff told us these happened twice per year and had been effective.

The service had support in place for staff wellbeing. This included a staff wellbeing service, a staff mental health service, talking therapies, occupational health, physiotherapy, financial support and an employee assistance programme.

Staff spoke positively about the service manager. They told us she was visible, approachable and responsive.

Staff could attend reflective practice sessions facilitated by the psychology department.

Staff we spoke with, told us they felt respected, and the 2024 staff survey confirmed 76.9% of staff felt valued by their team.

Staff had regular access to ongoing professional development.

However, according to the staff survey only 46.2% of staff felt satisfied with the opportunities for flexible working patterns. 46.2% of staff said that there were opportunities for them to develop in their career.