The Care Quality Commission
  • Mental Health
  • NHS mental health service

Archived: Westridge Assessment and Treatment Service

Horsemarling Lane, Standish, Stonehouse, Gloucestershire, GL10 3HA (01453) 563075

Provided and run by:
Gloucestershire Health & Care NHS Foundation Trust

All Inspections

Other CQC inspections of services

Community & mental health inspection reports for Westridge Assessment and Treatment Service can be found at Gloucestershire Health & Care NHS Foundation Trust. Each report covers findings for one service across multiple locations
Read inspection report

4 September 2013

During a routine inspection

Westridge provides periods of assessment for people who are in crisis. At the time of our inspection there were five patients staying at the service. We had feedback from one patient and observed the care provided to four patients. We spoke with five staff. A patient told us everything was fine and that they liked the routine. They told us their parents visited and they kept in touch by telephone. They said they liked to go out for drives and walks in the garden.

When people were admitted to the service they were given information about their rights. We observed patients being treated with dignity and respect. Their views were sought as part of the review of their care and treatment.

Systems were in place to gain the consent of people in respect of their care and treatment. This was reviewed to make sure it was still valid.

People's care and treatment had been discussed with them. Their care records provided staff with clear guidance about the way in which they should be supported. Patients had access to community healthcare professionals.

Standards of cleanliness and hygiene were being maintained. There were systems in place to monitor and audit the environment and to prevent the spread of infection. A patient told us, " they clean my room, change my bed and keep my room nice and fresh".

Staff had access to a range of training to ensure they maintained their skills and knowledge to undertake their work.

There was an effective complaints system in place.

18 December 2012

During a routine inspection

Whilst this was part of our routine inspection schedule. We also went because concerns had been raised with us about one person who used the service. Our Inspection team consisted of a Mental Health Act Commissioner who met with patients who are detained or receiving supervised community treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983 and another inspector. A report from Our Mental Health Act Commissioner will also be available to the provider focusing on the areas they inspected.

We spoke to people and we looked at the care records for three people who used the service. These records were all kept electronically. Each person had detailed care plans that were specific to them and included risk assessments. These were reviewed and updated regularly. The daily notes were completed appropriately and included all entries from the multi disciplinary team. We noted that all documents relating to each person was stored electronically and easily accessible.

Overall we looked at a number of outcomes and found nothing that gave us cause for concern.

9 February 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We talked with one patient who said they were wanting to go home. They did not want to talk to us about the care they were receiving. We observed patients choosing where to spend their time and with whom. One patient was planning to go out shopping and another was entertaining visitors. Patients appeared to be calm and engaged with staff when they wished to.

12 October and 12 November 2011

During a themed inspection looking at Learning Disability Services

We talked with two patients at the service and observed all eight patients over the two days. Patients told us they could talk to staff and we observed most staff treating patients respectfully. One patient said they would like to leave but knew staff were trying their best. Another patient said they liked to eat meals in the independence kitchen because the wards were too noisy. We observed a patient going to use the sensory room. Patients were supported to go out for a drive, a walk, to the shops and for a meal. One patient was supported to go to their church social. We observed two patients watching children's television and playing with children's toys. We were also told that patients were supported to use a hydrotherapy pool provided by another health or social care organisation.

Relatives told us they were happy with the service provided, the skills of staff and they felt informed and included in the care provided to the patients. They said that staff protected patients from harm by others or themselves. They were invited to review meetings and were involved in care planning. One relative said there were not enough activities for patients.