Jasmine Court Independent Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

At our last assessment in 2019 we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect and involved as partners in their care.

The service treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. We spoke with 3 carers who all said they felt their relatives were safe and were treated with kindness and respect. One carer said the staff were nice, they care and were great with their family member. Another placed emphasis on how staff knew their patients well. All patients we spoke with said the staff treated them with kindness and respect.

Staff were respectful, and mostly responsive when caring for patients. Patients told us that there were enough staff on the ward, although they sometimes had to wait for staff to respond to their requests at night.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their own care, treatment or condition. Patients were offered copies of their care plans and given information about their medications.

At the recent MHA inspection, the Independent Mental Health Advocate (IMHA) for the hospital told us staff were helpful, supportive and responsive to requests for information. Staff were open to input from the IMHA and acted on their suggestions.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed that they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. Staff were able to give examples of personalised care for individual patients, and it was clear they knew their patients well.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition.

Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. We saw an example where staff had acknowledged a patient’s cultural and religious requirements and had taken action to ensure the patient was properly supported in line with these.

The service treated people as individuals and made sure their care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences, taking account of their strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences.

Staff had a good understanding of each patient’s mental health, their risk history and their social circumstances outside hospital. Occupational therapists supported patients to pursue their interests and hobbies.

During a community meeting, a patient acknowledged that staff knew they enjoyed going for daily walks in the garden and local area, which was accommodated.

Patients and staff came from diverse cultural backgrounds. Staff recognised this and provided facilities to meet patients cultural and religious needs. The service was able to demonstrate considerations and actions taken to ensure person cantered care was provided to a patient with various protected characteristics.

The service promoted people’s independence, so they knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff made sure patients could access information on their rights and how to complain. Up to date information about the Mental Health Act, advocacy, the Care Quality Commission and making complaints was displayed on well-organised notice boards at the hospital. Patients were given information about their rights and were able to feedback to staff their views and wishes during 1-1 meetings with their key nurse, therapy sessions, during ward rounds and discharge planning meetings and community meetings.

Patients could make phone calls in private. Staff did not restrict patients’ access to their mobile telephones or devices.

Patients always had access to cold drinks and biscuits and crisps, and sandwiches could be requested outside of mealtimes. There was a kitchen that patients could use with the support of staff.

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. The service responded to these and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff involved patients and gave them access to their care planning and risk assessments. Patients and their carers attended ward rounds and were involved in decisions about care, treatment and discharge.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, such as falls or pressure ulcers and care planned for these accordingly. During our inspection we saw there were patients who had been assessed as needing enhanced observations. . One patient raised concerns about being disturbed during night time observations, this was reviewed by the MDT and observations were safely reduced resulting in better rest for the patient but still ensuring their safety.

Patients could give feedback on the service, and their treatment and staff supported them to do this. The service held regular community meetings. One patient had raised the issue of being cold on the ward, this was listened to and rectified by turning the heating on. Patients also showed appreciation for staff as well as discussing complaints, frustrations and interpersonal issues.

Staff made sure patients could access advocacy services. Information on how to contact the independent mental health advocacy service was displayed on a notice board.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff said the temporary hospital director was approachable, supportive and engaged with staff on the wards. Staff and managers said they found senior managers at the hospital to be very supportive.

The provider’s staff sickness and absence were low with the short-term sickness rate at 0% and the long-term sickness rate being 3.2% at the time of inspection.

The provider recognised staff success within the service, we saw photos of employee of the month in the reception area. Staff who win this award were nominated by colleagues, residents or carers.

Staff felt positive and proud about working for the provider and their team. Staff we spoke with took joy from building relationships with patients and getting to know them.

Staff had good morale and staff told us they enjoyed working at the hospital and they received good support from colleagues and managers. Some staff told us that there had been some personality clashes between staff but that this had improved by managers adjusting rotas.

Provider policy stated that staff should not be on enhanced observations for more than two consecutive hours unless exceptional circumstances. Some staff raised concerns around carrying out enhanced observations for more than 2 consecutive hours on a regular basis. We reviewed 6 days of rotas, and the policy had not been adhered to on any of those days. Staff were spending up to 5 consecutive hours on enhanced observations with a switch to 15-minute observations before returning to enhanced observations.

Staff also raised concerns that they could not always take their break if a patient took their Section 17 leave as there were not enough staff to cover the observations. Section 17 of the Mental Health Act 1983 allows a patient who is detained in a hospital to be granted a temporary leave of absence by their responsible medical officer.