You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 11 August 2016

We rated Ashwood Court as good because

:

  • Effective systems were in place to monitor and manage environmental risks

  • There were enough staff to meet patients’ needs and minimal bank and agency staff were used which provided consistency in the care delivered. Mandatory training was completed in line with the organisation’s requirements. Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding procedures, and knew how to raise any concerns appropriately.

  • Restrictions were individualised and based on a clear risk assessment for individual patients.
  • Initial assessments, care plans and risk assessments were individualised, recovery focused and took in to account patient views. There was a clear physical health care pathway and staff prioritised patient physical health care.
  • Staff received supervision and a yearly work performance appraisal in line with their organisational requirements. Team performance was managed through supervision.
  • There was a wide range of multi disciplinary professionals, and effective multi disciplinary team meetings including care programme approach meetings took place. Recognised rating scales were used to measure outcomes for patients.

  • Patients told us that they were treated in a kind and supportive way, and they felt safe within the hospital. Staff were knowledgeable about their patients’ care and treatment.

  • Patients felt involved in their care planning and could have a copy of their care plan if they wished.
  • There was a clear governance structure in place and the registered manager had oversight of the performance of the service through key performance indicators.

However,

  • Care plans were not written from the patient perspective.
Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 11 August 2016

We rated safe as good because:

  • There were environmental risk assessments in place including a ligature risk assessment with effective measures in place for managing all identified risks.

  • There was adequate staffing available on site and little bank and agency staff were used which provided consistency in the care delivered.

  • There was a well-stocked clinical room with a resuscitation trolley available. All equipment was checked daily to ensure that they were in good working order.

  • All staff had undertaken mandatory training, in line with the organisation requirements.

  • Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding procedures and knew how to raise any concerns appropriately.

  • Restrictions were individualised and based on a clear risk assessment for individual patients.

Effective

Good

Updated 11 August 2016

We rated effective as good because:

  • Initial assessments and care plans were individualised, recovery focused and took in to account patient views.

  • Staff received supervision and a work performance appraisal every year in line with their organisation’s requirements.

  • There was a clear physical health care pathway. Staff prioritised patients’ physical health care.

  • There was a wide range of multi disciplinary professionals, and effective multi disciplinary team meetings, including care programme approach meetings, took place.

  • Recognised rating scales were used to measure outcomes for patients.

  • Effective systems were in place to monitor the use of the Mental Health Act and the Mental Capacity Act.

However,

  • Care plans were written from the perspective of the nurse rather than being written from the patient perspective.

Caring

Good

Updated 11 August 2016

We rated caring as good because:

  • Patients told us that they were treated in a kind and supportive way, and they felt safe within the hospital.

  • Staff were knowledgeable about their patients’ care and treatment.

  • Patients were orientated to the hospital on admission and given information about the service.

  • Patients told us that they felt involved in their care planning and could have a copy of their care plan if they wished.

  • Community meetings took place monthly, where patients were able to give feedback on the services provided.

Responsive

Good

Updated 11 August 2016

We rated responsive as good because:

  • There were clear processes in place for admission to the hospital and all referrals had been seen within 10 days of receipt.

  • There were processes in place for accessing locality inpatient services.

  • There was a wide range of facilities available in the hospital to support patient care such as an activity area, and quiet lounges.

  • There was disabled access in to the building, with access to interpreters and leaflets in different languages should these be required.

  • Complaints were managed in line with their own policy, and an informal verbal complaint log had been commenced.

  • The patients told us that the food was of good quality and there was a varied choice available.

Well-led

Good

Updated 11 August 2016

We rated well-led as good because:

  • There were organisational vision and values, and staff were aware of these. The visions and values were incorporated in to the team plan.

  • There were clear governance structures in place for reporting to the board. The registered manager had oversight of all key performance indicators for the hospital.

  • The staff spoke of good team working and felt supported by their manager.

  • Regular staff meetings took place where staff felt that they were able to provide and receive feedback on the service.

  • The registered manager felt that they had enough authority to allow them to do their job.
Checks on specific services

Long stay/rehabilitation mental health wards for working age adults

Good

Updated 11 August 2016