Sheffield Health Partnership University 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 a Requires Improvement. 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 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 75 (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.

Relatives told us staff were very kind and caring and respected their relative’s privacy and dignity.

Patients said that staff were kind and compassionate but 2 patients, on Burbage ward told us that some bank and agency staff, particularly on night shifts, were not very attentive and had been seen to be on their personal mobile phones in clinical areas, with some being witnessed to be asleep whilst on duty. 1 relative we spoke with said they often spoke with their relative at midnight as their relative did not feel able to speak with the staff.

Relatives felt that their family members were safe and well cared for and felt able to raise any issues with staff or managers freely. Relatives were kept informed, knew who to speak with if they had any concerns and were invited to relevant meetings relating to their family member’s care and treatment.

We observed positive interactions between patients and staff. Staff engaged well with patients and helped promote a positive and friendly atmosphere. We observed a multidisciplinary team meeting which was attended by a robust and diverse multi-disciplinary team of professionals who showed a clear understanding of individuals identified needs. Staff clearly showed and articulated a clear understanding of the patient’s needs and showed a caring and compassionate attitude when discussing these.

On the tour of Burbage ward, which is a female ward, we noticed that the outside garden was overlooked from the bedrooms of Stanage ward, which is a male ward.

There had been documented incidents of ‘catcalling’, This issue had been raised by patients in the mutual help meetings and is evidenced in the meeting minutes.

The trust had tried to mitigate this, and conifer trees had been planted to create a screen. However, the trees were too small and did not currently provide privacy.

We observed staff interacting with patients in a positive, caring and professional way. We witnessed excellent, caring, compassionate interactions between staff and patients. Staff had clear knowledge of the patient’s preferences and communication needs.

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.

Adjustments were in place for disabled patients such as disabled access to premises, patients’ specific communication needs were met, with access to interpreters and signers when required.

We received feedback from relatives who told us that they were happy with the way staff within the service provided care that suited their family member’s individual needs, and that staff knew them well.

Staff treated patients as individuals with individual care plans tailored to their needs. Staff ensured patients had access to interpreters and external services to support physical health needs.

Staff informed us on Burbage and Stanage wards that patients were searched every time they returned from leave; this was a measure carried out by staff to ensure patient safety on the ward areas. However, this does not comply with the trust’s search policy. We informed managers of this who took immediate action to address.

Staff supported patients to meet their specific religious and cultural needs. There were multi-faith rooms available for patients to access, and chaplaincy attended the ward on a regular basis.

Of the 15 care plans we reviewed, the patient voice was evident, however some care plans were not holistic. Staff had developed individualised care plans dependent on the patient’s spiritual needs, physical health needs and mental health needs. Managers used feedback from patient’s and relatives to ensure that plans were personalised to their needs. Minutes from mutual help meetings and patient voice meetings evidenced that staff asked patients their views about the safety of the ward environment, restrictions and other improvements that could be made to the service, this included improved access to the garden area on Burbage ward and suggestions of equipment for activities.

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.

Patients and relatives told us there was access to a range of activities. Staff supported and encouraged patients to maintain relationships with the people who mattered to them. Staff supported patients to access cultural and spiritual support. Relatives had an awareness of the complaints process. Relatives could meet with the doctor and nursing team to ask questions about their family member’s care.

There were 'Patient Voice' meetings and ‘Mutual Help’ held within the service which gave patients an opportunity to discuss the activity schedules on each ward and the wider hospital site to tailor them to everyone’s needs and preferences. These meetings were also an opportunity to discuss any restrictions, such as access to areas, restricted items and any other topics that were of interest on the wards. There were suggestion boxes situated around the wards and wider hospital complex, with, ‘You said, we did’ display boards demonstrating any actions taken from feedback.

Relatives were involved in their family member’s care, where consent allowed. Relatives told us they were invited to join multidisciplinary team meetings and received updates of their family member’s care.

Patients had access to their own personal mobile phones and there were mobile phones available on all wards for patients to access if they didn’t have access to their own.

We were informed that the ward mobile phone for patient use would get broken, but they were not replaced quickly which meant if patients did not have their own telephone, they could not contact advocacy services. In the event of the ward mobile phone not working, patients would be allowed to use the ward telephone or members of staff could contact advocates on behalf of the patient

Staff promoted patient’s independence and enabled them to have choice and control over their own care, treatment, and activities. We observed staff supporting patients to stay connected with their relatives and friends.

We observed information boards on the wards with various posters, including how to access advocacy, therapies that were available, local services in the area, helpline numbers, how to make complaints posters and ward specific activities.

We observed there was a lack of activities available on the wards themselves particularly at night time and weekends. However, patients had access to the activities off the wards, such as art therapy, music groups, cooking groups, gymnasium, walking groups and various other sports.

Some patients we spoke to were not satisfied with the catering provided. They said the quality of food was not consistent and that sometimes food would run out if everyone chose the same option. We noted that issues regarding the catering had been raised in the mutual help meetings. We saw evidence of a variety of food options that suited patient’s dietary and cultural requirements. Food was stored appropriately with labels identifying use by dates and were checked by kitchen staff regularly.

Managers undertook regular audits, reviews, and meetings to ensure oversight over patient’s care and treatment and concerns raised were investigated in a timely manner.

Patients had access to a range of specialists. These included occupational therapists, associate psychologist, physiotherapists, speech and language therapists and a fitness instructor.

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.

Relatives felt that staff met the immediate needs of their family member.

Patients felt that staff were visible on the ward areas and were able to meet most of their immediate needs.

Staff used several techniques to identify patient needs and preferences. Staff told us they always knocked on patient bedroom doors, and ensured female staff were assigned to support female patients with any personal care. Staff demonstrated a strong understanding of restrictive interventions and practice, referencing both blanket and individual restrictions and individual care plans. Plans detailed what the risks were and why restrictions were needed but they weren’t always reviewed and updated in a timely fashion.

We observed some positive interactions between staff and patients.

Staff spoke with us about the patients they cared for in a caring, positive and professional manner.

Records showed that staff undertook training that supported them to respond to people's individual needs. This included, moving and handling, resuscitation, infection prevention and control, conflict resolution, equality, diversity and human rights, Autism awareness, National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) training and suicide prevention.

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.

Managers told us they ensured staff had access to support such as occupational health services for their own health and wellbeing; this was confirmed by staff we spoke with.

We were told by staff on Burbage ward about staff away days that had taken place which focussed on staff wellbeing, mutual expectations and supporting staff to work well together. Staff reported that these away days had a very positive impact and had resulted in more staff away days being organised trust wide.

Staff confirmed that career development and optional courses to aid in staff’s development were available.

Staff told us that they received clinical supervision, however we found that its compliance fell below trust targets.