Hampshire and Isle of Wight 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 rated caring as good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness. They respected patients’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of patients and supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff involved patients 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 80 (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.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed that they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition.

Staff directed patients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services.

Patients said staff treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them.

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

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of the consequences

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.

Staff were discreet, respectful, and responsive when caring for patients. Throughout the inspection, we saw positive interactions between staff and patients. We observed staff responding to patients calmly and sensitively. Staff were observed to be kind when dealing with a patient that was very agitated. Every time a patient knocked on the office door staff responded promptly.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their own care, treatment or condition. Staff said that encouraging patients to understand their condition and their treatment was a fundamental part of their work. Patients said that they spoke to their doctor if they had any questions about their medication.

Most patients said staff treated them well and behaved kindly. Some patients said that staff were very good. They said staff listened to their concerns and were supportive.

Staff understood and respected the individual needs of each patient. Of the 15 patients we interviewed across the services, 12 gave very positive feedback about their care. Three patients said they did not always feel listened to.

Staff followed policy to keep patient information confidential. Information held on electronic systems was protected. Staff entered a personal username and password to access this information. Patient information recorded on paper was held in locked filing cabinets.

The hospital made adjustments for disabled patients – for example, by ensuring disabled people’s access to premises and by meeting patients’ specific communication needs. The information provided was in a form accessible to the particular patient group. Each ward had a bespoke Hampshire and Isle of Wight NHS Trust information leaflet with details on treatments, local services, patients’ rights and how to complain Staff could made information leaflets available in languages spoken by patients.

Specific dietary requirements could be met by the kitchens and there was food suitable for religious and cultural needs.

Staff ensured that patients had access to appropriate spiritual support across all sites.

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 spoke with 15 patients across the wards and 5 relatives and carers. Whilst patients said overall staff were kind and respectful. Three patients told us that staff did not always respect their privacy. They told us that observations at nighttime were disruptive and always woke them up, impacting on their sleep time. Whilst patients told us they had a care plan, three patients felt they were not always involved in creating the care plan and updating it with their primary nurse.

Patients said staff treated them well and behaved kindly. Patients said staff were willing to listen and that they felt respected. 11 said that staff were respectful and polite and said they had a good relationship with staff and staff behaved correctly towards them. Patients said they had better relationships with some staff more than others.

Patients told us they were supported to maintain relationships and networks outside of the hospital and they had regular contact with their family and friends. Patients confirmed they had an advocate and knew how to access them. Patients had also been given information about their rights.

Staff spoke with understanding, compassion and empathy when talking about the patients they were caring for. Staff discussed optimism for patients’ recovery. Staff said they sought patients consent before sharing information. Staff said patients had access to information about medication, side effects, treatment, and recovery plan. Patients were involved in decisions about their care and treatment, in ward rounds, care plan approach (CPA) meetings and tribunals.

During the assessment, we observed that staff were visible and engaging with patients to support them with day-to-day tasks. On Mary Graham ward patients and staff were friendly and welcoming, we observed patients and staff greeting each other and interacting.

Patients were able to raise concerns or suggestions about the service directly to staff, through regular ward community meetings or by using the patient feedback form. Staff facilitated weekly community meetings with patients. The minutes of these were displayed in the communal noticeboard for patients to have easy access. We looked at the minutes of these meetings and patients fed back about occupational therapy, staff issues and maintenance and repairs.

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 within the services had a good understanding of each patient’s mental health, their risk history and their social circumstances outside hospital.

Occupational therapists and activity co-ordinators supported patients to pursue their interests and hobbies. For example, some patients attended the gym in Ravenswood House each day. We saw that there was an activity timetable for each ward and activity staff were trying to cover a 7-day occupational therapy timetable with the resources they had. Patients and staff provided feedback that activities were much lighter at the weekend, and they would prefer to have structured planned activity rather than self-directed activities and sessions that were not always able to be facilitated by the ward staff. However we saw an excellent quality improvement co production piece of work, where the occupational therapists have been supporting patients whilst in seclusion to reduce boredom. The occupational therapists were exploring the role of occupational therapy in seclusion and pushing for nationally recognised minimum standards for this provision.

Staff were also aware of patients’ specific vulnerabilities. For example, they were aware that one patient was vulnerable to exploitation. In response to this, they regularly spoke to this person about their relationship with other patients.

Staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when patients’ behaviours became heightened.We saw evidence of staff using verbal de-escalation techniques to manage patients’distress and behaviour. Staff used appropriate strategies for calming difficult situations including diverting patients and avoiding conflict.

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.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service. An employee assistance programme was available to staff. Staff felt positive and proud about working for the Trust and their local teams.

The Trust cared about and promoted the wellbeing of staff and supported and enabled them to deliver person centred care. Staff said the local leadership teams across the services were approachable, supportive and engaged with staff on the wards. Staff felt respected, supported and valued.The trust held monthly Health Roster Clinics to ensure that there was good Health roster Management. The clinics reviewed shift allocation, use of annual leave and ensured rosters were out in a timely manner.

Flexible working arrangements in place.

HR attended the units and supported staff sickness management and all staff had a return to work interview post sickness.

Staff were able to access specialist training in working with people with autism and challenging behaviour and it was reported that a lot of work had been completed across the services to improve staff culture and morale which had a positive impact on the patients. Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported.

Staff felt positive and proud about working in their local teams.However,some staff felt there was a lack of visibility from senior leaders of the Trust particularly since the formation of Hampshire and Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, which is a combination of Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust, Solent NHS Trust and the community and mental health services from the Isle of Wight NHS Trust in October 2024.We were told the senior leadership teams had a strong presence on the wards and staff knew who the senior leaders and clinicians were and how to access them. The staff reported that they felt the ward managers had an open-door policy and recognised the responsibilities that the ward managers had.