Field House

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

This means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment, the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

We found the care and treatment provided by the service was effective. It was evidence based, measurable, and monitored for outcomes. Processes and training were in place to support staff to fulfil their roles and responsibilities. Patients and where appropriate their families were encouraged to be involved in their care assessments and plans which maintained a person-centred approach. Staff demonstrated a good understanding around the importance of capacity to consent. Correct processes and assessments were in place to safeguard patients and their interests. Patients were supported if they had communication needs and had access to internal and external resources to help capture their voice.

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.

Patients were treated as individuals and were fully involved in their care, and treatment decisions. They were invited to attend care and treatment reviews. We reviewed 9 care plans and found that they had all been completed fully and were person centred. Interventions were in place for physical and mental health concerns. Ward rounds were attended by the multidisciplinary team (MDT) and patients. MDT reviewed each patients’ individual needs, documented them in patient care records and updated care plans and risk assessments, if required. The service provided carers assessments to identify any needs and support that may be required.

Treatment and assessments were evidence based and monitored for outcomes. Staff continually monitored and assessed the patient’s needs. We reviewed the services clinical policies and found legislation and best practice cited within them. Patients had access to a variety of evidence-based treatments from occupational therapists and psychologists. For example, Trauma Focused Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (TF-CBT) and Compassion Focused Therapy (CFT), the service also provided and promoted pet therapies, and one to one or group sessions. Staff completed specific assessments to ensure the patients would receive the correct support, care, and treatment pathway, for example, ADHD and autism assessments. Staff used evidence-based treatment to support people. Staff adhered to legislation and good practice guidance.

Staff worked well in a multidisciplinary team, including doctor, nurses, psychologist, occupational therapist assistants (OTAs), and health care assistants (HCAs). External partners were invited to care and treatment reviews, ensuring continuity of care, treatment, and support for the patients and their families/carers. Patients’ care was well coordinated, and everyone involved in their care worked well together. External partners who attended MDT had meaningful engagement with patients. Information was shared and next steps discussed regarding the transition of people’s care and treatment. Information was shared allowing service and external agencies to work together to support the patient effectively. There was a thorough approach to planning and coordinating people’s move to other services, which was done at the earliest possible stage. Arrangements fully reflected patient's individual circumstances and preferences. Community psychiatric Nurse’s (CPN) were invited to attend multidisciplinary team meetings where appropriate.

Patients were supported to live healthier lives. Staff monitored their health and carried out assessments to identify specific needs. If required, staff referred patients to specialist services to meet their needs. For example, physiotherapy services. Staff supported people to make healthier life choices, for example improving diet, encouraging, and promoting exercise by regularly taking patients walking and swimming. The service had an allotment project which encouraged patient involvement, activity and promoted education. Patients had a choice of meals, with healthy options encouraged and promoted. Meals were cooked freshly by an onsite chef.

Staff routinely monitored people’s care to support them in achieving the best outcomes for them, for example, physical health screening, food and hydration, and needs assessments. All staff were actively engaged in activities to monitor and improve quality and outcomes. The service had systems and processes to ensure that people’s care was continually reviewed in line with their changing needs. The provider liaised with other rehabilitation service providers, locally and nationally, and took part in numerous benchmarking schemes and clinical audits associated with patient experience, diagnosis, and medicines.

Patients were asked for their consent to care and treatment where possible. Where necessary, people with legal authority made decisions within the requirements of the Mental Health Act 1983 and Code of Practice. This included the duty to consult others, for example, a second opinion doctor (SOAD) and advocacy. Where patients did not have the capacity to make decisions, staff adhered to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and the appropriate assessments were completed. Assessment outcomes were documented in the patients care record. This ensured care and treatment was provided in the way the patient wanted and consented to it.