Pinhoe View

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

Good: This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. Staff managed beds well. A bed was available when a patient needed one. Patients were not moved between wards except for their benefit. Patients did not have to stay in hospital when they were well enough to leave. The design, layout, and furnishings of the ward supported patients’ treatment, privacy and dignity. Staff supported patients with activities outside the service, such as work, education and family relationships. The service met the needs of all patients – including those with a protected characteristic. Staff helped patients with communication, advocacy and cultural and spiritual support. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the result.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in patients’ needs.

The service had an admission process which identified each patient’s self-care needs so that patients can manage their own personal care and bedroom and bathroom cleaning to the greatest extent possible. Patients were supported to do their own laundry and supported to access reading glasses, hearing aids, walking sticks, shower chairs, translation services and spiritual support.

The service asked patients what they enjoy doing, what their sensory preferences were and any triggers that can be minimised, along with providing support around child and pet care arrangements, employment and education opportunities, finances and any concerns regarding the accommodation patients would return to. Each patient determined their own goals for admission, and these were recorded on the care plans we reviewed.

The catering team adjusted mealtimes for patients wishing to fast when observing religious practices. Each ward had added 2 new bedrooms following some renovation work. These bedrooms were larger, with double beds and were situated on the quiet side of the wards. These rooms had been added so that patients who were nearing discharge could move into these bedrooms to give them more autonomy.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

When appropriate, staff ensured that patients had access to education and work opportunities. Patients were supported to reintegrate into their local community. One patient was studying on a remote course with the open university.

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with their families and carers and all patients and staff we spoke with praised the family liaison provided by the service. Staff also liaised effectively with community support and rehabilitation during discharge planning. Staff supported patients to access their chosen place of worship within the community.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional at developing appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard. Wards displayed relevant patient information in accessible formats. We saw posters for advocacy, chaplaincy, local takeaway providers, how to make a complaint, each patients named nurse, daily activities and staff boards with staff names and photos. The service has provided interpreters and translated material for a variety of non-English speaking patients. These patients were also given written records in their native languages.

Patients confirmed that staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, and how to complain, always in a form accessible to the patient group. Staff ensured carers, families and commissioners were regularly updated about the patient’s progress. All patients praised the family liaison service, which they said, “was great, whenever my family asks they are kept up to date”. The service regularly invited family to ward rounds, and updated relatives on progress for their loved one by telephone every week.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed and information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

There have been 11 complaints at the service in the last 12 months. 6 complaints were fully or partially upheld, 4 complaints were not upheld and 1 complaint was withdrawn. 9 of the 11 complaints were acknowledged with 2 days and patients received feedback on the investigation of their complaint. 3 complaints resulted in follow up actions by the service of behalf of the patient and no complaints were referred to Ombudsman. Patients said they knew how to complain or raise concerns, using complaint forms held in the office, or by talking to the nurse or manager. Information on how to complain was also displayed on the community notice boards.

Staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately and protected patients who raised concerns or complaints from discrimination and harassment. Staff also received feedback on the outcome of complaint investigations and acted on the findings.

Staff enabled patients to give feedback on the service they received. Community meetings were held every week with good attendance from staff and patients. All patients we spoke with mentioned the community meeting as the primary source of giving feedback. We observed 2 community meetings and patients received feedback from previous requests they had made. There is a suggestion box and a clear “you said, we did” process, with all suggestions investigated and revisited until patients are happy. Clyst ward operated an anonymous suggestions box which was reviewed weekly by the ward manager. Changes and improvements were made when it was safe to do so. All results were published on community noticeboards. Patient were encouraged to make suggestions on food choices and activities they would enjoy on the ward.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional at ensuring patients could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients. Staff ensured the needs of patients with mobility issues were met. Wheelchair users had access to a lift. There was adequate medical cover day and night. There were doctors on site every day and the service operates an on-call medical rota that cover’s three Elysium services (The Woodmill, Wellesley Hospital and Pinhoe View) during the night. The rota is circulated weekly. A doctor could attend the ward quickly in an emergency and the service was located close to the local acute hospital. There were 3 defibrillators on site; 1 on each ward and 1 in the reception area. The service practiced monthly emergency scenario-based training drills, with 100% of staff trained in epilepsy awareness, identified as a need at the service and over 90 per cent of required staff had completed basic and immediate life support. The learning from these was captured and shared in team meetings.

Staff ensured patients had access to post-discharge care – for example, S117 aftercare, community mental health services and crisis services. Staff planned for patients’ discharge, including good liaison with care managers/co-ordinators. In the last 12 months, there were 12 delayed discharges from the service, ranging from 8 to 87 days. These were due to patients awaiting approval of a package of care either in their own home, in the community or in supported accommodation and were outside the control of the service.

All patients are referred to advocacy automatically upon admission regardless of capacity, allowing the Independent Mental health Advocates (IMHA) from Devon Advocacy to hear from patients first hand. POhWER general advocacy service visits the ward 2 days per week and IMHA also visited the service once or twice a week. The service checked IMHA involvement for each patient daily, noting the date of referral, the date attended, and whether the engagement had been good or not.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. Staff and leaders were innovative in how they listened to information about patients who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Staff and leaders used this information to provide exceptionally tailored care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the patients felt empowered to give their views. One hundred per cent of staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights. Both ward managers were interviewed by patients when applying for their roles and patients were encouraged to participate in staff recruitment.

The provider had undertaken equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage. Local networks for staff run by Elysium offered psychologist support for neurodiversity and the service had employed staff with physical disabilities.

Staff had completed training with the charity Stand Against Racism and Inequality (SARI) and staff could contact SARI whenever they need to.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Patients were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Family were encouraged to attend meetings by the family liaison and information was fed back to relatives after any meetings they are unable to attend in a routine and coordinated manner. A comprehensive well-produced brochure for families was available.

Staff support patients to make decisions about their care and treatment and their future. Staff create personalised care plans to account for the patient’s needs, wishes and feelings. Staff ensure all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of patients with complex needs and supported patients to stay in touch with family and friends, in line with clinical and therapeutic goals. Contact was through daily phone calls, video calls and planned visits.