You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 7 February 2018

We rated The Dallingtons as good because:

  • The service had good medications management in place. Resuscitation equipment and emergency drugs were available. Staff checked these regularly.
  • The wards were clean, had appropriate furnishings and equipment, and were well maintained by staff.
  • Shifts were consistently covered with a sufficient number of staff.
  • Staff used restraint as a last resort. There was emphasis upon verbal de-escalation and using non-physical techniques to calm patients who were distressed.
  • All staff knew what constituted an incident and knew the reporting system in place. Managers ensured that staff received feedback and learning from incidents.
  • All patients had a physical examination upon admission. Physical healthcare monitoring was undertaken routinely. Patients had care plans in place to reflect physical illness.
  • Staff received supervision in line with the provider’s policy.
  • Staff adhered to consent to treatment and capacity requirements.
  • Where possible, staff encouraged patients and relatives, to be involved in their care and treatment.
  • Staff responded to complaints appropriately, and within a timely way. An apology was given if necessary.
  • All staff knew the senior management team, who were visible and approachable.
  • Morale among the staff was good across both wards. Staff genuinely enjoyed their roles at the hospital.

However,

  • There had been one occasion when the provider failed to notify the CQC of a safeguarding concern in a timely way.
  • Only 67% of staff had received training in manual handling.
  • Not all care plans were evaluated in detail.
  • Appraisals undertaken did not detail discussions around personal development and future goals.
Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 7 February 2018

We rated safe as Good because:

  • The clinic rooms were fully equipped. Resuscitation equipment and emergency drugs were available and staff checked these regularly.
  • The service was clean, had appropriate furnishings, and was well maintained.
  • There was enough staff on duty on each shift, which enabled the staff to meet patients’ needs.
  • Any restrictions placed upon patients were individually risk assessed.
  • Staff used restraint as a last resort, and placed emphasis upon de-escalation.
  • Each ward had good medication management in place.
  • All staff knew what incidents were, explained the reporting process, and reported what should be reported.
  • Manager’s cascaded feedback and learning from incidents to staff across the two wards.

However:

  • On one occasion, there had been a significant delay in reporting a safeguarding concern to the CQC

Effective

Good

Updated 7 February 2018

We rated effective as good because:

  • Staff completed a comprehensive assessment for each patient upon admission.
  • Patients had their physical health examined upon admission and routinely thereafter. Appropriate care plans were in place to identify ongoing illness.
  • Staff were receiving regular supervision in line with the providers policy.
  • Staff adhered to consent to treatment and capacity requirements.
  • Staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and assumed capacity unless a capacity assessment demonstrated otherwise.

However,

  • Staff did not always undertake detailed evaluations of care plans.
  • Staff appraisals did not demonstrate discussions around development and forward progression.
  • Not all staff had received training in the Mental Health Act.

Caring

Good

Updated 7 February 2018

We rated caring as good because:

  • We observed some kind, thoughtful and respectful interactions between staff and patients during the inspection.
  • Most patients were very positive about how staff cared for them.
  • Staff offered patients copies of their care plans. Patients were encouraged to be an active part of care reviews (where possible).
  • Families and carers were invited to relevant meetings to discuss care and treatment, when the patient had consented.
  • Patients were able to express ideas and views of the running of the service through community meetings and daily meetings.

However,

  • Not all care plans demonstrated the patient’s views and wishes.

Responsive

Good

Updated 7 February 2018

We rated responsive as good because:

  • The service completed all assessments within seven days of referral.
  • The service had a range of rooms and equipment to support treatment and care, including outside space.
  • The service had achieved a five star food hygiene rating. Patients spoke positively of the food and choices available.
  • The service accommodated patients who may have physical disabilities or who may require a wheelchair.
  • Staff responded to complaints in a timely way.

Well-led

Good

Updated 7 February 2018

We rated well-led as good because :

  • Staff demonstrated the vision and values of the hospital in their day to day work.
  • All staff knew the senior management team, and told us they were visible and supportive.
  • Senior staff undertook regular audits as part of their ongoing quality assurance programme.
  • Shifts were covered with a sufficient number of staff, of the right grades and experience.
  • Most staff knew of the whistle-blowing policy and felt they could use if required, without fear of victimisation.
  • Morale among the staff was good across both wards.

However,

  • The provider did not follow their policy to monitor the fitness of directors of St Matthew’s Healthcare Ltd.

Checks on specific services

Long stay/rehabilitation mental health wards for working age adults

Good

Updated 7 February 2018