Coventry and Warwickshire Partnership 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 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 65 (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.

Staff attitudes and behaviours towards patients observed during the assessment 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.

Family members of patients admitted to the service reported that they felt staff were caring and felt assured of the care their loved ones were receiving.

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

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.

Patients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances.

Staff ensured that patients had access to appropriate spiritual support. Wards had multi-faith rooms. However, a patient on Stanley ward said that staff did not always take them to church.

At the time of the assessment, there were no patients with specific communication needs. However, the service was well equipped to manage this if required including accessing interpreters.

All patients had personal emergency evacuation plans that included any additional support they may need to support in the event of an evacuation.

A family member of a patient told us they often observed staff treating people as individuals when they visited.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Patients were able to make choices regarding their food. Patients were supported to be as independent as possible, for example, changing their diet so they could eat unaided but safely. Staff supported patients to maintain personal hygiene if this was needed.

The wife of a patient in the service told us their husband didn’t want to engage with occupational therapy input. She recalled that the staff gave him a few opportunities to engage but then accepted that he did not want to and informed him that if he changes his mind this could be revisited.

Patients had a choice whether they wished to engage in activities on the ward. An activity co-ordinator informed us that they consult the patients on what activities they want to do and produce a plan based on this. This included things like board games and gardening.

However, some patients said that staff could be quite restrictive towards patients. This included patients not agreeing with their medication or being told to go to bed when they didn’t want to.

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 responded promptly to changes in patients’ risks. The multidisciplinary team reviewed these observation levels at safety huddles, held twice every day. If staff noted that a patient’s presentation was deteriorating, they engaged with the patient to understand the reasons for this. Staff would then take appropriate action such as engaging the patient in a meaningful task, contacting a doctor or increasing the level of observations.

We observed staff respond to patient’s needs attentively throughout the assessment. This included needs such as hydration as well as emotional needs when this was required.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, such as falls or pressure ulcers and care planned for these accordingly.

Family members told us they were not constrained by visit times to the ward in order to respond to needs of family members and patients.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service cared about, and promoted the wellbeing of staff. The service supported and enabled staff to deliver person-centred care. However, there was low staff morale on one ward due to its impending closure.

Staff had different views on the organisational culture within the service across the different sites. Most staff felt respected, supported and valued. For example, staff on Ferndale, Stanley and Pembleton wards reported a positive working culture. However, morale was low on Woodloes ward, many staff felt they were not treated fairly with regards to the closure of the ward with regards to consultation, feeling listened to and transparency.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service.