Bradford District Care 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 has remained Good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service treated patients with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected people’s privacy and dignity.Throughout the inspection we observed that staff at all levels, includingward managers and staff above ward managers knew and interacted with patients by name. We observed a service manager talking to a patient and a ward manager joking with a patient.

All staff were discreet and responsive when caring for patients. Patients told us staff took time to interact with them in a respectful and considerate way. Staff understood and respected the individual needs of each patient and showed understanding and a non-judgmental attitude when caring for or discussing patients.

Patients described staff as polite, non-judgemental and supportive. Patients told us they felt they could speak openly with staff and discuss any issues related to their care.

We observed staff and patient interactions throughout the inspection, and these were all positive. Ward managers had an ‘open door’ policy where patients could come and visit them in their office.

We saw that staff and leaders at all levels knew the patients well and appeared at ease when interacting with them. We observed staff showing patients genuine compassion and understanding.

All staff we spoke with were passionate and committed to delivering good care. Staff and patients both fed back that they had built good therapeutic relationships which they said formed a key part of their recovery.

The client group was diverse. Clients told us that staff understood and respected their personal, cultural, social and religious needs.

We spoke with external stakeholders who told us staff treated them with kindness and respect.

Staff followed policy to keep patient care and treatment confidential. Care records were stored securely, and documents were password protected.

The service treated people as individuals and made sure patient’s care, support and treatment met individual needs and preferences.Patients told us staff offered them practical and emotional support and advice when they needed it.

The service had a policy in place to manage violence and aggression. Staff we spoke with provided examples of when patients had become distressed or agitated and could explain steps they had taken to support them.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on their rights, treatments, local services, and how to complain. There were a range of useful contact numbers on display for those entering the service. Patients confirmed they were offered information and signposted to external services on admission and reminded of this throughout their period of treatment.

The information provided was in a form accessible to the patient group. There were easy read leaflets, and information provided in a variety of languages. Some patients had limited English, and managers could provide examples of when they had arranged for interpreters to support them at ward round.

Staff ensured that patients had access to appropriate spiritual support including local chaplains and Imams.

Care plans demonstrated patients were actively involved in decision making and were supported to make their own choices about their care. Patients were supported to maintain networks that were important to them.

Staff gathered information about patients including their medical and forensic history, and background prior to admission, which they said helped inform care and treatment. Easy-read information was available for clients who needed this and there were information leaflets in a range of different languages.

Patients were able to have regular contact with their loved ones we saw evidence that visits were facilitated on a regular basis. Staff ensured family and carers were invited to attend multidisciplinary team meetings and they made sure patients had access to advocacy.

Patients told us there were enough staff on shift for them to take part in their preferred activities and to access leave. Most patients said they could access leave at times that suited them.

We observed that patients were given choice and control in relation to their care. Care records showed evidence of patient involvement in options and that patients were given sufficient information to make their own decisions in relation to the care they received.

When we carried out our observations on the wards, patients had access to all the areas they wanted which included activity spaces and the outdoor spaces. Some areas of the wards were locked but there were enough staff to ensure that patients could be supervised in these areas if they needed to access them.

Patients had their rights read and revisited on a regular basis and consent was gained and recorded correctly in care records. Records showed a continued involvement from patients in the development of their care plans. There was evidence that staff held regular community meetings with patients to gain their feedback about their experiences on the wards.

Patients told us that staff listened to and understood their needs, views and wishes. Staff could provide examples of how they were quick to respond to these and took action to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues for each patient. Patients were involved in all aspects of their care planning. Care records showed that patient’s individual risks were recorded and updated. Staff understood people's likes and dislikes. Care records demonstrated that staff were alerted to patient's needs and responded promptly and appropriately to these. Staff and managers had a good understanding of the patient group and could provide examples of how they had responded to changes in risk. Daily handovers included an update on risk.

Staff told us that they would use verbal de-escalation in any first instance, and this would often be used to good effect.

Staff carried personal alarms and would use these to request urgent support from colleagues to aid a patient who needed urgent help.

We saw staff members undertaking observation checks accordingly on each of the wards that we visited.

We saw clear and detailed risk assessments in place for staff to follow should a patient require urgent help.

The seclusion room was safe and offered appropriate viewing areas whilst offering dignity and privacy for the user. The area also offered an outside space for patients spending time in the seclusion area.

Staff generally told us that they felt listened to and supported by their managers and senior managers to undertake their roles. Some staff fed back that they were busy but that there were generally enough staff on shift.

Staff survey results for 2024 showed that the service received over 60 percent positive responses for all areas, with 5 out of 9 areas having over 70 percent positive responses. These included questions about whether the service was compassionate and inclusive, whether staff had a voice that counts, and whether the service enabled staff to work flexibly. The lowest scoring question was in relation to whether they felt the service was ‘always learning’ with only 60 percent positive responses received. Data for 2023 confirmed that the service had seen an increase in positive responses from the previous year for all areas.

During interviews, managers acknowledged that some staff felt overstretched and very busy on the wards. They said they tried to accommodate the needs of the workforce and made reasonable adjustments in line with legislative requirements.

Staff had access to regular management support and monthly clinical supervision. Compliance for September 2025 was 100% for Baildon and Thornton ward, and 87.5% for Ilkley ward. However, for August 2025, Thornton ward and Ilkley ward were 60% and 67% compliance respectively, with Baildon at 100%.

Managers told us that compliance with clinical supervision was an area of focus throughout the service. The clinical manager and ward managers were completing some improvement work to try and increase supervision compliance rates. This included developing an electronic survey and holding awareness session for band 2 and 3 about the importance of attending clinical supervision.

Managers made sure staff received an annual appraisal. Compliance was currently 90% on Baildon ward, 67% on Ilkley ward, and 72% on Thornton ward, although this figure included new starters who were booked to receive an appraisal within the next two weeks.

Staff had access to occupational health and an employee assistance programme.

There were a range of non-mandatory training courses and electronic learning available to staff who wanted to develop their skills or had an interest in a specific area. The trust’s intranet had a learning and development page which provided information on courses and learning available.

Managers completed de-briefs and contacted individual staff members following incidents to check whether they needed any support.

Managers provided training and gave information to staff to protect their safety. They ensured staff completed management of violence and aggression training and were provided with patients’ risk information, for example when escorting them on leave.

Staff could access an attendance hub on the intranet which gave advice on flexible working, wellbeing checkpoints, and the occupational health service.