Gatwick IRC Cluster

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. We act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and we share this securely with others when appropriate.

Find out what we look at when we assess this area in our information about our new Single assessment framework.

The judgement for Shared direction and culture is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Freedom to speak up is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

At our previous inspection we found that partnership working with the centre was not effective at a strategic or day-to-day level which created risks in the delivery of healthcare services to patients.

At this inspection, some areas of partnership working had improved which had allowed a more effective day to day delivery of the service. Improved attendance to joint meetings and better communication, including understanding of the needs of departments helped the provider tailor care delivery. However, issues remained around space and the removal of a clinical or therapeutic room. This was without consultation and at short notice, with no offer of other spaces. This impacted mental health delivery and patients the most. Given the significant traumas that patients experience, the removal of spaces to allow therapeutic interventions was particularly damaging.

Previously, systems to monitor and mitigate risks were not fully effective. Audits had been carried out relating to safeguarding and infection control which had identified areas of concern. Limited action had been taken to resolve infection control issues, and no action plan was provided to evidence what action would be taken. Some actions had been started in relation to safeguarding, however this was several months after audits had identified issues.

At this inspection we found audits were now more frequent, but quality and action planning needed more focus to ensure progress on deficits.

A new safeguarding lead had helped to improve identification and management of vulnerable patients. The lead was now working on increasing reporting within the team. This included information sharing with the Home Office on changes of patient vulnerability, the quality of the documentation of health assessments for segregated patients and the thresholds for triggering rule 35 reports (for those whose health is compromised by detention).

At the last inspection we were concerned that systems to ensure complaints were investigated and responded to in a timely way were not fully effective as some mental health related complaints had taken too long to respond to.

During this inspection we found the management of complaints had been completely updated and reviewed. The provider was able to demonstrate how they had overhauled the system to ensure all complaints were sent to a single point of contact. Several key staff were able to review and triage complaints. All complaints now received an acknowledgement letter, a holding letter explaining any delays for more complex issues and a final formal response. Staff had been upskilled to ensure responses were appropriate and the records we reviewed demonstrated this. While there were some delays as the new process embedded, we could see a much more efficient and coordinated complaints’ management system.

The judgement for Partnerships and communities is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Learning, improvement and innovation is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.