Kings Norton Hospital

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

We rated caring as requires improvement. People gave mixed feedback about how staff responded to their needs. Three of 8 people said staff ignored them and did not respond when asked for support. People said in the evenings and at weekends there were not many activities which meant they were bored. Care plans did not always show staff how to meet people’s individual needs.

Staff gave mixed feedback about how managers promoted their wellbeing. Some staff were supported to develop while others did not have the support needed which impacted on their wellbeing. However, we saw evidence that staff wellbeing was being promoted, and all staff were given opportunities to develop.

We observed staff were kind and treated people with respect and compassion. Some people said staff listened to them and this made them feel valued. People were supported to maintain contact with their family and friends.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Some people did not experience staff treating them with kindness, compassion and dignity. Some people said staff had ignored them and did not respond when they asked them for support. However, people said most staff were kind and supportive. People said they felt valued and listened to by psychology staff.

Staff told us they looked at people’s care plans to help understand their preferences and wishes about their care. During a person's first admission, the service did not always have a full history of the person however, work was done at Kings Norton with people and their families to understand their personal history which is then shared throughout the team.

Partners told us that they had no immediate concerns about people’s experience of their care at the hospital.

We observed staff being kind and compassionate to people. During the community meeting on Lakeside ward there was a good rapport and laughter between staff and people. Staff included and invited all people to contribute to the meeting.

The community meeting minutes on Hope ward included several compliments about staff kindness.

Records showed that people’s views and wishes were considered in their care planning. Records showed that staff spent time explaining to people in a way they could understand about their care and treatment so they could make decisions about this.

Staff treated people as individuals. One person told us the doctor really listened to them and trusted them, and they found this helpful in their recovery.

A new person was admitted to Manor ward. Staff recognised the person was anxious and isolated in their bedroom. Staff spent time walking around with them, holding their hand and reassuring them. They made sure the person had a drink and tried to encourage them to have something to eat.

Staff told us they treated people as individuals as much as they could. However, at the time of our visit in September 2024 they were not always aware of people’s personal, cultural, religious and communication needs as they did not always have this information in people’s care plans. Following a request for further information in February 2025 we reviewed 3 people's care plans which were detailed in information about each person's needs and preferences.

People’s individual needs and preferences were not always reflected in their care plans. Five of 11 care plans did not show that people’s individual needs and preferences were understood and reflected. Care plans did not show people’s preferred methods of communication and how staff could support them so they could engage in their care and treatment.

People were supported to have some choices about their care and treatment.

People told us they were supported to maintain relationships and networks that were important to them. They had visits from their family and friends and could phone them on their mobile phones. People could invite their family to their weekly review meeting and if needed this could be done via video link. They said their family were involved in decisions about their care and treatment.

However, people said they were bored and wanted more activities particularly in the evenings and at weekends.

Staff told us how they supported people to make choices about their food and keep in contact with their family and friends if they wanted to. However, nursing staff said they did not always have time to support people to do activities on the ward or in the local community. The manager told us the effectiveness of shift planning has been identified as a development need for some staff who carry out nurse in charge role and targeted learning has been carried out.

People were supported to have choice about their care and treatment. We saw that people chose what music videos were on in the lounge. People chose what food to eat from the menu. People’s choices were included in the menu that had been updated. People had their personal items in their bedrooms if it was safe to use these.

Records showed that people were supported to have control over their own care and make decisions about their care and treatment.

Records showed that people were able to keep in contact with their family and friends during their stay at the hospital.

People’s needs, wishes and comfort were not always a priority and staff did not always quickly anticipate these. People gave mixed feedback about how staff responded to their needs. People said day staff were more proactive and responsive than night staff. Four of 8 people said staff were approachable and helpful and although there may be a short delay they did respond. However, 4 people said they had to push for help and ask staff several times. They said that sometimes it felt like the loudest person got attention and it was hard to get your needs met if you were quieter.

People said that staff did their therapeutic observations, but they did not engage or ask how they were, and they had to prompt conversation. One person said they asked staff for some toiletries but did not get them which made them feel ignored.

People said that rules should be clearer to avoid confusion and contradiction as some staff knew what items were contraband, but others did not always know. However, a clear and concise contraband list was displayed on the wards, was shown to people on admission and was included in the patient handbook. Staff were fully aware of the items that were banned and restricted.

Staff reviewed people’s risk assessments and care plans to know how to respond to their immediate needs. Staff told us they found out how to respond to people in the most appropriate way to respect their wishes which might include engaging them in an activity they enjoyed. They were aware that some people might need time on their own and respected this if it was safe to do so.

We observed staff responded immediately once an incident occurred, but they did not anticipate people’s needs and wishes to avoid distress. On Manor ward, we observed an incident between 2 people which resulted in physical aggression. Staff responded to this and intervened immediately to separate the people involved. However, staff told people they were going to go out for a local walk so several people got ready for this. After 14 minutes some people were anxious about waiting to go out, staff had difficulty finding everybody’s cigarettes which increased people’s anxiety. One person said, “if we had gone at the time staff said the incident wouldn’t have happened.” People went out for walk 28 minutes after staff had first suggested it. There was a lack of planning of the activity to ensure people’s needs were a priority.

Records showed that staff responded to people’s immediate needs and sought assistance from other staff and medical professionals to support people.

The provider did not always recognise and meet the wellbeing needs of staff. There was mixed feedback from staff about how the provider promoted their wellbeing. Some staff said workforce wellbeing was prioritised more which included staff appreciation breakfasts, more staff recognition and suggestions for improvement being listened to. Staff said they had their rotas in advance so they could plan for their days off. They could do overtime, but they knew they could work no more than 5 days a week. Some staff said morale was good and they worked as a team. They said they had training and always got their breaks during a shift.

Some staff told us the provider supported them to do their apprenticeship for nursing and this included support during the week to attend college. This meant they could achieve a qualification whilst still being able to work and get paid. Some staff had been supported to do leadership training.

However, some staff said that until recently internationally educated nurses were not given the support they needed as they did not have a mentor. The manager said the ward managers were the nurses mentors on arrival. They said this had improved at the time of our visit and they were getting the support they needed as defined by the programme to ensure they had the skills and experience to work as a registered nurse in the UK.

Some staff said that if the staffing levels were not enough on the ward this meant they experienced ‘burnout’ which impacted on their wellbeing. The manager said effectiveness of shift planning has been identified as a development need for some staff who carry out nurse in charge role and targeted learning has been carried out.

The provider told us of their initiatives to improve staff wellbeing. They also now have a wellbeing committee in place and monthly events provided for staff to show appreciation and recognise wellbeing.