St Andrews Healthcare Northampton

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We assessed one quality statement under effective. Whilst care plans were up to date, personalised, holistic and recovery orientated, not all patients felt that they had care and support that was co-ordinated, and that everyone worked well together and with them. In relation to the development of patient care plans; two patients told us that they had not been involved, two patients said that they were sometimes involved, and 1 patient told us that whilst they had been involved, they didn’t agree with what had been written. We were not assured that staff had fully received the relevant training to work with the patients on the wards. The provider had not delivered training which fully met the needs of the patients. There was no training delivered which was specific to the care and treatment of patients who had been subject to a head injury. In addition, dysphagia training was not monitored via the non-mandatory training indicators and staff from other areas, bank and agency did not attend dysphasia training before working on the brain injury unit.

This service scored 29 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

Most patients who were able to communicate, told us that they could get information about their health, care and support and how they could be as well as possible; physically, mentally and emotionally. However, two patients told us that staff did not enable them to live as they wanted to.

Staff had completed a comprehensive mental health assessment of each client. Staff developed a comprehensive care plan for each client that met their mental and physical health needs. Staff had regularly reviewed and updated care plans when patients' needs changed. Care plans were personalised, holistic and recovery orientated.

The provider had processes in place such as policies, procedures and clinical audits, to promote evidence-based good practice and standards. However, the provider did not deliver training specific to the care and treatment of patients who had been subject to a head injury, despite most patients on the ward having had a brain injury. Dysphagia training was not monitored via the non-mandatory training indicators (despite several patients having dysphagia), and staff from other areas, bank and agency did not attend dysphasia training before working on the brain injury unit.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

Patients were able to access information and advice about their health, care, and support and how they can be as well as possible, physically, mentally, and emotionally. One patient told us that they had been given support to lose weight but that they had become bored. However, another patient told us that they had not been involved in reviewing their health and wellbeing.

Staff told us that they worked with patients to enable them, to encourage and support them to make healthier choices and to help promote and maintain their health and wellbeing. Patients had care plans in place which addressed their health and wellbeing. These care plans included a wide variety of physical health checks and the promotion of healthy living.

Care plans were up to date and showed evidence of detailed patient assessments.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

Not all patients felt that they had care and support that was co-ordinated, and that everyone worked well together and with them. Two patient told us that they had not be involved, two patients said that they were sometimes involved, and 1 patient told us that whilst they had been involved in their care planning, however they didn’t agree with what had been written.

Staff told us that they supported patients to make decisions on their care for themselves. Staff understood the service’s policy on the Mental Capacity Act 2015 and knew what to do if a client’s capacity to make decisions about their care might be impaired. Staff told us that they gave patients all possible support to make specific decisions for themselves before deciding a client did not have the capacity to do so. Some patients did not have capacity. For some of these patients, care was delivered under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

All patient care plans had a section on patient’s rights and legal status. Care plans were in data and included details of patient’s capacity, and we observed staff respecting patient consent.

The provider had systems and processes in place to inform patients about their rights around consent. These aimed to ensure that staffing assessed patient’s capacity and ability to consent, and they, or a person lawfully acting on their behalf, engaged in planning, managing, and reviewing their care and treatment.