Waterloo Manor Independent Hospital

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

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating remains good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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.

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

Patients told us they developed their plans in collaboration with staff and they had a copy if they wanted to. Families were invited to ward rounds and care review meetings where appropriate. Patients told us their physical health needs were met and that they had no concerns around their medicines. However, 6 of the patients we spoke to did not like the food.

Managers told us the service aimed to re-integrate patients into the community and promote a good quality of life. Managers and staff were able to tell us about the type of service the wards delivered, what treatment was being offered and the overall model of care for each ward. They gave examples of how they met a patient needs who had a learning disability by seeking input from a community nurse to help devise their care plan. Staff told us advocacy services were available and we saw the advocate visiting patients on site during the assessment. Managers told us they shared national guidance and updates with staff regularly.

There were a variety of treatment options available to patients including occupational therapy and psychological therapies such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. Staff had implemented Positive Behaviour Support plans for those patients who needed them to support their quality of life. We reviewed care records on each ward and did not find any concerns with staff adhering to evidence based good practice and standards. Staff used a collaborative care planning system to ensure that care plans reflected the full range of patient needs, including the assessed physical health needs. Staff now ensured that all physical health monitoring was carried out as instructed in care. For example, care plans included management of asthma, diabetes and cancer. Patients were being supported by staff to find supported accommodation in the community. Staff received training in a range of physical health conditions including diabetes, epilepsy and wound management. Compliance for these training sessions was above 85% for all courses. Some patients had learning disabilities. All staff were required to complete learning disabilities training, and compliance was at 99%. There were effective processes to ensure that work staff carried out met the needs of patients. For example, checks and audits were completed and there were regular meetings such as MDT meetings where patients could discuss treatment plans and ways forward. There was a MHA administration team in place who monitored compliance with the MHA/MCA. We reviewed a sample of MHA records and found these were in order. Care records showed that patients had their rights under the MHA explained in a way that they could understand. However, there was no time specified in 2 records on Hazel ward when these would be revisited. Staff completed MCA training every 2 years. At the time of the assessment, the compliance rate was 98.1% across the hospital. Staff also completed MHA awareness training, and the compliance rate was 91%.

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.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.