Text size: a | a | a

Privacy, dignity and identity

It is important for individuals who have to spend a long period in hospital that the effects of institutionalisation are kept to a minimum. It is essential that people are treated with appropriate dignity and respect and are able to exercise some degree of freedom of choice.

Two-fifths of the people we interviewed during the visits told us that they have to share a room - some still in dormitory type accommodation. In some hospitals everyone said they had a single room and in many there was a mix of provision. It was more common for people in rehabilitation wards to have single rooms and for people in continuing care wards to share. Nearly everyone we spoke to in the following hospitals had to share accommodation:

  •  Hartwoodhill (Gigha) 
  • Gartnavel Royal (ward 8 and Tate) 
  • Murray Royal (Glenelg) 
  • Ravenscraig (Corlic C & D) 
  • Royal Cornhill (Dunnottar and Fyvie) 
  • Stratheden (Dunino, Falkland, Kinnaird and Lindores)

Almost a quarter of the people we spoke to said they did not feel confident that their possessions were kept safe. Some people had no access to secure lockers, or had to rely on staff locking things away. Hospitals where a high proportion of respondents felt their possessions were not safe were:

  • Hartwoodhill 
  • Murray Royal 
  • Bellsdyke

Responses from people in the other hospitals were mixed, but the majority of people reported feeling confident their possessions were secure. Perceived safety of personal possessions did not seem to be affected by whether a person had a single or a shared room.

Privacy in bathroom and toilet areas identified more concerns. More than one in five of the people we spoke to said their privacy is not respected. This does mean that in most hospitals there is no significant problem.

However, twice as many people in Gartnavel (ward 8 and Tate) answered 'no' to the question "is your privacy respected?" than answered 'yes'. Responses from individuals in Stratheden hospital were half and half.

There were single negative comments from people in a number of other hospitals.  The main issue for individuals on wards appears to be intrusion from staff - one person recalled a member of staff walking in without prior announcement or explanation, and when challenged said "I've seen it all before". This lack of courtesy was reflected in some other comments reportedly made by staff, e.g. "you don't have anything I don't have".

The ability to exercise choice in as many areas of daily living as possible is important for the individual's rehabilitation, as well as sense of self. Yet almost half of those interviewed did not have the opportunity to make snacks or hot drinks when they wished. The priority given to smooth running of the daily routines and the risks to a few appears to limit the experiences of all, in these wards. In this respect, there has been little progress since the 2003 unannounced visit report where we said that locking the door to the kitchen for safety reasons was not good enough.

On a positive note, nearly everyone has access to a garden and almost all of the respondents were actively keeping in touch with family or friends outside the hospital. Moreover, two-thirds did not think anything needed to be changed. For some, this may reflect the reduction in aspirations over the time they had been in hospital, but we believe that many people came to a positive conclusion about their overall experience, after careful consideration.

Although we did not ask about the accommodation that was available when they were ready to be discharged, a number of people made unsolicited comments on this subject. These indicated a lack of choice in supported accommodation in some areas, which limited people's opportunities of moving on to a place in the community.