Archived: Nelson House

The purpose of the hospital is to provide rehabilitation for people and we were told the focus was on recovery. People we spoke with using the service were able to tell us about their future plans and what support they were receiving to enable them to move back into the community.

Many of the people receiving care had complex needs and enduring mental health problems.

We carried out an inspection in December 2013 when we identified concerns with respecting and involving people. People who used the service were not always given appropriate information and support regarding their care or treatment. We found on this inspection that the provider had taken steps to improve this area.

Where able, people using the service were involved in the planning of their care and treatment. Individualised care plans detailed the support and care each person required. People were protected against risks regarding their safety as the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage safeguarding. The quality of the service provided was monitored by an effective quality assurance processes.

People confirmed they received the support they needed. We observed staff being respectful, asking if people they needed support and assisting when asked.

The purpose of the hospital was to provide rehabilitation for people and we were told the focus was on recovery. However, when we spoke with people using the service they were unsure about the future and what support they were receiving to enable them to move back into the community.

Many of the people receiving care had complex needs and enduring mental health problems.

We carried out an inspection in September 2013 when we identified concerns with care and welfare, medicine records and how the service was monitored. We made compliance actions asking the provider to take action in order that we were reassured that people were in receipt of safe and adequate care. The provider wrote to us and told us what action they were going to take and they sent us an action plan in October 2013.

We inspected on 16 December 2013 to review the progress the provider had made. We found that the provider had taken steps to improve consent, care planning and medicine records. Individualised care plans detailed the support and care each person required. People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines. The quality of the service provided was monitored by an effective quality assurance processes.

One of the managers mentioned at the beginning of this report, Mr Sam Gangata, no longer works at the service and CQC will be removing his name.

We observed staff being respectful, asking people if they needed support and only assisting when asked. One person told us “If I need something I ask staff and they give it to me”. “We have meetings everyday where you can say what’s on your mind or what you want to do that day”. One person described their experience as “It’s generally okay, not the place for me. Another commented, “Staff care, I get on well with most of them. They try and help. I do lots of things like watching TV or DVD’s and I go out sometimes”.

Staff told us about working at Nelson House and the support they receive from the manager and other staff. “The management are really approachable, easy to talk to and will point them in the right direction”. The staff we met also told us about the training they had attended and that they were able to speak openly with senior staff and the manager about any concerns.

We found areas of concern with consent to treatment, care plans, medicine records and assessing and monitoring the service. All of these areas were discussed with the manager.