Broomhill

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We saw that staff did incorporate patients physical, mental health, emotional, social and religious / spiritual needs when planning care, and approached this holistically in line with best practice. However, the patients voice needs to be clearer within care documentation to fully reflect discussions staff and patients held. There was a lack of evidence of family involvement in the care plans we viewed. There were systems and processes in place for patients to give feedback, whether this be positive, negative or neutral. We were not assured that these systems were promoted by staff as much as they could be. However, staff were able to easily access information, advice and advocacy services on behalf of patients as and when needed. The hospital had a diverse patient mix, and staff were aware of the different needs of individuals. Staff had access to translators and signers for people who required additional support with communication. Patients told us that staff listened to them and acted upon any concerns raised. People at this service had equal access to care, treatment and support. Patients could access medical attention out of hours as and when needed. Staff worked with the visiting GP to ensure physical health was regularly monitored and relevant annual physical health checks were completed. Referrals to specialist healthcare professionals were made as and when required.

This service scored 43 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Most patients we spoke with told us that the service met their needs. Patients said staff considered their physical health as well as their mental health. Patients were able to see the visiting GP if needed. Patients were encouraged to attend places of worship outside of the hospital if they were able, although there was a designated quiet room for space and reflection within the hospital that patients could use.

Staff described a holistic approach to a person’s care, to take into consideration mental health and emotional needs; general physical health needs to include any long-term health conditions, such as asthma or diabetes. Social circumstances were considered when planning discharge and support that may be required. Staff said that patients were encouraged to maintain a healthy weight, eat healthy and could be prescribed nicotine replacement therapy if they chose to want to quit smoking.

There were designated staff focused upon physical health which contributed to regular monitoring for certain physical conditions, and staff implemented relevant care plans around individual health needs. We saw that the patient voice could be improved upon in documentation seen. The provider placed emphasis upon person centred care being reflected within care planning through their policies, processes and training. We did not always see this in practice. For example developing a culture that gave staff the skills, confidence and knowledge to be able to motivate patients to have aspirations and goals, alongside a robust and embedded mental health rehabilitation model of care.

Most patients we spoke with said staff understood their needs and knew there were different members of the multi-disciplinary team who could help them for more specific needs. One patient said staff did not always listen to their needs and accessing the multi-disciplinary team could be difficult as they were not always available.

Staff we spoke with talked about the diverse needs of the patients, in terms of culture, religion, background and life experiences. Staff knew that each patient had unique needs, which in order to be met, required some understanding of the patients’ background, history and beliefs. Staff we spoke with did not highlight any deficits with care not being joined up, although one staff member did say they felt they needed more occupational therapy staff.

While feedback we received from partners did not highlight concerns around care provision and integration. Continuity of care was a concern expressed by several partners, due to frequent changes of the hospital manager and ward managers.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Patients told us they could make complaints, express concerns, share ideas or give general feedback to staff easily. Wards held regular patient meetings whereby issues could be raised in a more open forum if appropriate. For more sensitive matters or areas of concern, patients said they would speak individually to a staff member, likely the ward manager in the first instance. Patients told us they did feel staff listened to them and investigated matters when this was needed for more serious concerns. Most patients said staff do offer some degree of feedback regarding what had been raised and discussed, while maintaining confidentiality of others who may be involved.

Staff said patients definitely had a voice and would express concerns if they were unhappy with something. Staff knew how to handle complaints, who to escalate to, and where to record details. In the first instance, staff would try to resolve these locally. Staff said that they tried to learn from any complaints and took actions forward if it could make things better for others admitted to the hospital. Senior staff also offered staff on the wards feedback if there had been a particularly serious complaint which had prompted actions and learning.

We observed a patient meeting on one ward, which had more staff in attendance than patients. One of the patients told us that they did not always feel they could speak up if they are outnumbered by staff, as it could feel intimidating. Across the hospital we saw posters informing patients of how they could make complaints or share feedback about the service.

Most patient said they had access to care and treatment when they need it. One patient told us members of the multi-disciplinary team were not always available which was frustrating. Patients were aware that nursing staff could call a doctor in the evenings or at weekend or in the evenings if a patient needed medical attention. All patients said the ward layouts were OK and they had no problems getting around. The hospital had lifts patients could use if they were unable to manage stairs.

Staff said that all patients were given the same opportunities with regards to care and treatment, regardless of their individual needs. Adjustments could be made. For example, if a patients first language was not English, interpreters could be sourced, or if preferred, a family member could translate. Staff could search for common phrases and words on the internet to help communication.

The provider had relevant policies and procedures in place which promoted equality and diversity. The provider has a “zero tolerance” approach to discrimination. The equality and diversity policy, and the equality and human rights policy were very detailed and accessible for staff to refer to. Managers ensured all staff were up to date with essential training. Training compliance in the areas of equality and diversity; gender and sexual diversity and Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were all above 92%.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.