Humber Teaching 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 outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

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

Staff treated people with compassion and kindness. They respected their privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of people and supported them to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff involved people in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

This service scored 70 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Quality Statement Score: 3

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.

During our site visit we undertook a number of observations which showed staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with people were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing them with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it.

Staff supported people to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition, whether this was assistance with aspects of daily living, activities, assistance with medication or access to the community and external services.

Staff we spoke with spoke compassionately and knowledgeably about the people they supported and the 3 people with spoke with during our inspection told us staff treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them. We spoke with the relatives of one person who told us, “Staff who work with him daily are brilliant and I am happy with the progress he is making” and another relative we spoke with told us, “Staff are great…I can see he trusts them”.

We spoke with 5 external partners who told us, “All staff that I have witnessed have worked with kindness, compassion and dignity.” External partners also told us, “Privacy has always been granted to allow the person to engage away from staff and share their voice openly.”

The service provided us with 1 compliment received in the past 12 months that specifically related to the inpatient wards, "The healthcare staff on the ward are all amazing with him, it would be lovely if staff on the ward can be made aware of how much we do appreciate them. The support from everyone has been outstanding." The service had received 1 survey response in the last 12 months, and the person had rated all questions, such as ‘Do you feel that we showed you privacy, dignity and respect’ good or very good.

Staff we spoke with understood the individual needs of people, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. This was reflected in the 4 care records that we reviewed.

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards people without fear of the consequences. We saw evidence that the ward took appropriate action when concerns were raised.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about people.

Quality Statement Score: 3

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 service could support people’s additional needs such as mobility needs by ensuring all people could access the premises and by meeting specific communication needs with the use of communication aids, were appropriate.

Staff ensured that people could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights and how to complain. This information was available in the area between the 2 wards, so people had access to it if they were off the ward and at the time of our visit, all people had Section 17 leave (permission for patients to leave hospital).

Most of the information was provided in a form accessible to the patient group and people we spoke with told us they were involved in meetings and completed 'My meeting book' and people confirmed they had access to advocacy. The service told us they used communication aids to communicate and provide information. External partners provided feedback and told us their experience was that, “Staff will also adjust their approach based on the person’s emotional needs when assessments are being carried out to try and meet both client emotional and physical needs.”

People had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerance's. However, all 3 people we spoke with told us they did not like the food provided and preferred to make their own food or request something different which the wards supported.

Staff encouraged and developed ways for people to access things that were important to them, for example, cultural and spiritual support. The service celebrated national holidays and would make this relevant to the cultures, values and customs of the patient group.

Quality Statement Score: 3

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 feedback we gained from people, their families and external partners indicated that people had access to activities and monthly community meetings. People were also supported to maintain relationships with their family. A relative we spoke with told us, “A small trampoline was bought for the ward and he is taken to a park on a morning” and we observed another person going out for a ride on his bike, which he enjoyed most days.

During our assessment we gained feedback from 8 team members and the ward manager, clinical lead and divisional lead. All staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act; they supported people to communicate and make informed decisions about their care.

The service linked in with external teams to support people to maintain independence and control and external partners told us, “Achievements are celebrated in a way that promotes pride and encouragement, evidencing an understanding of a person and their potential.”

We looked at 4 care and treatment records which had detailed positive behaviour support plans in place. People had hospital passports, to support the person if they were admitted to hospital, however we noted that 1 hospital passport we reviewed had been completed in 2023 and there was no record to indicate this had been updated. Some information contained within the care plan was not reflected in the hospital passport, for example communication aids or tools to be used with the person.

Quality Statement Score: 2

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 service had in place positive behavioural support plans, formulations and transition plans for all people using the service, this included preventative interventions and approaches. However, at the time of our assessment feedback from managers and staff was that these agreed strategies and approaches were not being consistently applied and care plans were not always followed. Managers and leaders we spoke with had implemented a number of new initiatives and training sessions to upskill and equip staff to be able to effectively identify and respond to changing risks to, or posed by, people but this was not fully embedded within the service.

The hospital committed to reducing the use of restraint and restrictive practices, promoting human rights and person-centered approaches. The provider was a member of the Restraint Reduction Network (RRN). Staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when a person’s behaviours became heightened.

The wards responded to physical health by using recognised rating scales to assess and record severity and outcomes such as National Early Warning Score (NEWS) to identify acute deterioration, including sepsis. Nurses also showed an awareness of new medication, device safety alerts and current practice guidelines. People were referred to external services such as dentistry, community health and to speech and language therapy, as required.

Quality Statement Score: 3

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, enabled and trained staff.

Staff spoke positively about their role in terms of the support they provided for people and they spoke with genuine compassion and kindness regarding the people which they supported. Staff mostly felt respected, supported and valued by the trust.

The service’s staff sickness and absence were above the trusts target of 5% in September 2025 at 6.4%. In the last 12 months the wards average sickness absence was 6.7% and turnover rate was 18%. The service had not completed any exit interviews however, it was explained that this was due to staff taking the opportunity to move into other vacant positions within the trust and not leaving the trust entirely.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service. However, staff we spoke with told us about incidents that had occurred and counselling they had been offered, which unfortunately they had not managed to access. Additional support for staff was being provided by the recently appointed clinical psychologist. The trust also had several staff wellbeing initiatives that any staff could access, and the provider told us they recognised and celebrated staff success within the service, for example staff nominated colleagues for the ‘Sock of the Week’ award for their work, kindness and support.

Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported.