Holybourne Hospital

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Patients we spoke to stated that they felt involved in choices surrounding their care.

However, staff did not always record patient involvement clearly. There was some variability in the recording of patients’ views across the wards. Some care plans had little in the way of patient views recorded, even when insight and the ability to express views had improved over the course of their admission. Of 14 patients we spoke with, 11 said they did not have regular one to one session with their named nurse.

Staff directed patients to other services and supported them to access those services if they needed help.

Staff understood and respected the individual needs of each patient. Staff across all the wards showed a good understanding of patients’ needs, their illnesses and their social circumstances outside the hospital. At ward round and the daily planning meeting, staff discussed patients’ personal preferences, risks and physical health need. Most patients we spoke to stated that their needs were being met.

Staff carefully planned patients’ discharge and worked with care managers and coordinators to make sure this went well. There was a multidisciplinary meeting with community health team and home treatment team to review discharges, admissions and overall patient flow. Care co-ordinators were regularly invited to the weekly ward round meetings to offer their input and provide updates on any possible barriers to discharge.

Some patients only remained at the service for short time periods before being transferred back to their local area. Whilst occupational therapy staff and psychology staff supported patients to develop essential living skills, due to the length of time patients spent on the wards education and work opportunities were more limited

The service provided up to date information about important areas in formats that were tailored to the patient group, and individual needs, where necessary. The service had information leaflets available in languages spoken by the patients and local community. Managers made sure staff and patients could get help from interpreters or signers when needed.

Patients, relatives and carers knew how to complain or raise concerns. The service provided patients with information on how to complain. Information about the provider’s complaints procedure was also detailed in the patient welcome booklet and leaflets were available. Patients told us they felt confident to approach staff for advice about the complaints procedure if they needed to.

The service clearly displayed information about how to raise a concern in patient areas.

Staff knew how to deal with complaints and there was an established system for ensuring complaints were responded to. This included informing the person who had complained of the timescale when they would receive a response.

When patients complained or raised concerns, they received feedback. Whenever possible, the ward manager dealt with informal complaints straight away and gave patients feedback. The service had received 9 complaints between December 2024 and May 2025. Of these, 3 were withdrawn, 2 complaints were upheld, and 4 were still in progress. Senior leaders told us that there has been a focus on strengthening the responsiveness regarding patient complaints. We reviewed 4 clinical governance meeting minutes and saw that complaints was a topic of discussion on the agenda. For example, one complaint was surrounding the environment regarding the noise on the ward.

Staff knew how to acknowledge complaints and patients received feedback from managers after the investigation into their complaint.

Staff protected patients who raised concerns or complaints from discrimination and harassment.

Managers shared feedback from complaints with staff and learning was used to improve the service.

The service used compliments to learn, celebrate success and improve the quality of care. For example, in April 2025, the service received 10 compliments regarding patients thanking staff for care, ward environment and food.

The service referral and acceptable criteria was clear.

If someone was not from the local area, staff helped patients to stay in contact with families and carers. Staff told us they were proud that they made every attempt to keep patients connected to their families and carers. Most carers and relatives that we spoke to told us that they felt suitably informed about their loved one’s care and treatment.

Some patients only remained at the service for short time periods before being transferred back to their local area. Whilst occupational therapy staff and psychology staff supported patients to develop essential living skills, due to the length of time patients spent on the wards education and work opportunities were more limited.

Staff supported patients with activities outside the service, such as education and family relationships.

The service was aware of the importance of equity in experience and outcomes and worked with partners to aim for this. Patients stated that they felt that they were able to raise any concerns and how to do this.

The service worked with people and their families around preparation for discharge. Patients we spoke to stated that they were able to make decisions about their care.