Schoen Clinic York

Updated 14 December 2022

Schoen Clinic York is a specialist eating disorder hospital for up to 15 male and female adults with eating disorders. The registered provider is Newbridge Care Systems Limited.

Schoen Clinic York is registered to provide the following regulated activities:

• Assessment or medical treatment for persons detained under the Mental Health Act 1983
• Diagnostic and screening procedures
• Treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

The hospital had one registered manager and an accountable controlled drugs officer.

We have inspected Schoen Clinic York three times since it registered with us on 9 January 2019. Prior to this, the hospital was run by another provider. Our last inspection took place in January 2022 and our report was published in April 2022. At that inspection, we placed the service in special measures and issued 21 requirement notices in relation to the following breaches of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014:

• Regulation 9 person centred care
• Regulation 10 dignity and respect
• Regulation 12 safe care and treatment
• Regulation 13 safeguarding service users from abuse and improper treatment
• Regulation 15 premises
• Regulation 17 good governance
• Regulation 18 staffing.

What people who use the service say

We spoke with five patients who told us that all staff were kind, considerate, respectful and approachable.

They told us they were fully involved in their care planning, risk assessments and ongoing treatment through attendance at meetings about their care. Patients reported positive experiences of multidisciplinary meetings to review their care. Patients told us that their care was individualised, they had regular 1-1 sessions with nurses and occupational therapy.

Patients who had been in the service longer told us about the gap in psychological therapies however the feedback regarding the current therapy sessions was positive. Patients told us that they were addressing issues that hadn’t been previously addressed.

Patients told us they were involved in the service, could give regular feedback and felt listened to by managers.

However, three patients told us that there were issues with the choice and quality of the food provided. One of the three patients told us that they felt the service were listening to patient issues and this was the only downside to the service.

Updated 14 December 2022

Our rating of this location improved. We rated it as good because:

• The service provided safe care, the ward environments were safe and clean, the wards had enough nurses and doctors and staff assessed and managed risk well. They minimised the use of restrictive practices, managed medicines safely and followed good practice with respect to safeguarding.
• Staff developed holistic, recovery-oriented care plans informed by a comprehensive assessment. They provided a range of treatments suitable to the needs of the patients and in line with national guidance about best practice. Staff engaged in clinical audit to evaluate the quality of care they provided.
• The ward teams included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of patients on the wards. Managers ensured that these staff received training, supervision and appraisal. The ward staff worked well together as a multidisciplinary team and with those outside the ward who would have a role in providing aftercare.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and understood the individual needs of patients. They actively involved patients and families and carers in care decisions.
• The service managed beds well so that a bed was always available locally to a person who would benefit from admission and patients were discharged promptly once their condition warranted this.
• The service was well-led and the governance processes ensured that ward procedures ran smoothly.

However:

• Staff, below medical level, could not always describe their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005
• There were challenges with the current premises in terms of space to support treatment and care.
• Patients fed back and quality audits showed that there were issues with the choice and quality of food provided.
• There was evidence that a decision made in a multidisciplinary meeting was not followed through and notes did not fully reflect the decision-making process.

Updated 14 December 2022

Our rating of this service improved. We rated it as good. See the summary above for details.

Updated 10 March 2020