Royal Albert Edward Infirmary

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

Staff treated people who use the service, their relatives and carers with compassion and kindness. Staff understood and respected people’s individual needs. Staff supported people to maintain their privacy and dignity, including when receiving corridor based care. We received a mixed response from staff working in partner organisations about their relationships with the service.

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.

Patients, their relatives, and carers felt they were treated with kindness, compassion, and dignity by staff members. They said that staff listened and communicated with them appropriately, in a way they could understand. The trust provided patients with a ‘friends and family test’ to rate their experience of the service. Between February and March 2024 935 people responded to the friends and family test relating to the emergency village. From those who responded 66% were positive, 9% neutral and 22% were poor (remaining 3% stated they ‘did not know’). Patients believed staff responded to their needs quickly and efficiently when they were in pain, discomfort, or distress. Although privacy and dignity were not always maintained for patients receiving corridor care, the patients we spoke with did not voice any concerns and acknowledged the difficult circumstances staff were working in. They appreciated the care, kindness and compassion that was shown.

Staff and leaders acknowledged the difficulties in ensuring that dignified care was always upheld for corridor patients and during lengthy waits for treatment but had measures in place to provide support for patients. Staff were aware of privacy and dignity issues such as corridor patients having access to private cubicles for toileting needs, personal care, and medical reviews. Where possible they worked to best maintain people’s dignity whilst waiting for treatment. Staff understood and respected the individual needs of each patient. They understood and respected the personal, cultural, social, and religious needs of patients and how these may relate to care needs. Staff told us that working relationships within the department were mostly positive, although sometimes there were challenges with skill mix. We received a mixed response from staff working in partner organisations about their relationships with the service.

We were told there was not always a culture of respect between the emergency department and colleagues working in partner organisations including the ambulance and mental health trusts. Staff told us there could be some difficulties in communication between staff working in partnership with the emergency department, often due to the referral pathways being unclear. Some staff also felt this had resulted due to the ISAT area being staffed with less experienced members of staff.

We saw that patients receiving corridor care were in close proximity to one another with no access to privacy screens, in a busy and noisy area. However, we did see corridor patients being transferred to allocated areas for personal care, discreet observations and medical reviews. This allowed for confidential discussions around their care and treatment. We observed patients, their relatives and carers being treated with kindness and compassion throughout the emergency village. Despite the demands placed on staff, they were discreet when discussing confidential matters and provided a warm welcome to patients who were arriving. We observed staff listening to and communicating with people and their loved ones in an appropriate way they could understand. Staff were seen to consider patients’ preferences, wishes, personal histories, backgrounds and potential.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Independence, choice and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.