26 July 2022 & 27 July 2022
During a routine inspection
Our rating of this location stayed the same. We rated it as good because:
- The service had enough nurses and doctors. Staff assessed and managed risk well. They minimised the use of restrictive practices and followed good practice with respect to safeguarding.
- Staff developed holistic, recovery-oriented care plans informed by a comprehensive assessment. They provided a range of treatments suitable to the needs of the patients cared for in a mental health rehabilitation ward and in line with national guidance about best practice. Staff engaged in clinical audit to evaluate the quality of care they provided.
- The ward teams included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of patients on the wards. Managers ensured that these staff received training, supervision and appraisal. The ward staff worked well together as a multidisciplinary team and with those outside the ward who would have a role in providing aftercare.
- Staff understood and discharged their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
- Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness and understood their individual needs. They actively involved patients and families and carers in care decisions.
- Staff planned and managed discharge well and liaised well with services that would provide aftercare.
- The service worked to a recognised model of mental health rehabilitation. It was well led and the governance processes ensured that ward procedures ran smoothly
However:
- The premises required regular maintenance work due to its age.
- Emergency equipment and medications were not easily accessible, and locations were not clearly indicated with signage.
- Staff were storing food items in the service’s medication fridge and therefore not following best practice with regards to the safe storage of medicines.
- The service’s fire plan did not accurately reflect the storage of oxygen cylinders.
- Staff did not always follow the provider’s procedures for the recording and disposal of medications.
- The electronic system for recording when medicines were administered did not enable a narrative to the reason a medication may not be given. This was not in line with the provider’s procedures.
- The facilities on the ward did not fully support the privacy and comfort of the patients. Staff were unable to discreetly observe patients in their bedrooms during a night-time without disturbing them.
- Some patients felt food options were limited and portion sizes small. The food supplier did not provide foods to cater for patients requiring level seven food for dysphagia if this were needed.
- Support workers did not feel valued and most staff felt disconnected from the wider provider.