Field House

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 Good. At this assessment, the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

The service worked well with external partners, and patients when planning and delivering patient care, treatment, and planning for the future. The service completed appropriate assessments and demonstrated a person-centred approach which enabled them to respond quickly and efficiently to the patient’s needs and choices. Accurate information was given to patients in a timely manner. Training and processes were in place which enabled the service to identify possible bias, discrimination and barriers to treatment and how to act on this to support the patient appropriately. Where appropriate patients' family members, and people who knew them well were encouraged to be involved in their care and treatment.

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.

Staff encouraged patients to be involved in their care, so their individual needs and preferences were met. One patient told us “My care and treatment does feel tailored to my needs; the staff know me well and my doctor is good and knowledgeable. They all take the time to listen to me”. Staff helped people to plan for important life changes, for example discharge or transition to other services, so they could make informed decisions. People’s care was person- centred. Staff saw patient’s as unique individuals and recorded people’s emotional wellbeing, social, cultural, or religious needs in their assessments. Families and carer needs were also assessed and supported where appropriate. We reviewed 9 care and treatment plans, they showed the patient, and where appropriate their families had been involved in their formulation and review. The patient’s needs, and preferences were accommodated, for example, staff adjusted medication times for a person with specific religious needs. Patients had regular one to one time with their allocated nurse and attended regular multidisciplinary team meetings where they were empowered to make decisions about their care.

Patients care was well coordinated, they were involved in discussions and decisions around their future care provision, if they were transferred to another care provider, this reassured them and ensured continuity. With consent from patients, staff invited external partners in care to attend all multidisciplinary team meetings (MDT). Partnerswere encouraged and supported by the service to be actively involved in the care, treatment, and support of the patient. Staff, external partners and patients worked collaboratively which had a positive impact on outcomes for patients, when planning discharge from the service, either to return home or to an alternative care provider to continue their treatment journey. Assessments were completed to check the patient's eligibility for the proposed service to ensure they would receive the appropriate care and support, and their future needs could be met.

Patients received accurate and up to date information from the service about their care and treatment, in a way they understood. Information was provided in different formats if this was requested or required. Staff used resources available to them when delivering information, and, when required, referred patients to external communication services. For example, interpreter services were provided when required to overcome language barriers, information could also be made available in different languages to meet patient need. Information was handled in line with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) guidance.

Patients and their families knew how to feedback on their care and were encouraged and supported to do so. They were listened to and involved when feeding back their experience of care within the service.Patients attended monthly meetings where they had the opportunity to share their feedback with staff whether positive or negative. We reviewed the minutes from 3 previous patient meetings, where a concern had been raised, it had been addressed with actions evidenced, and the outcome fed back to the patient raising the concern.Staff acknowledged feedback or complaints which were investigated with the patient or the person raising the concern receiving an outcome within a set timeframe. We reviewed several concerns which had been raised, all were addressed appropriately and in a timely manner.There were feedback forms available around the service, these could be completed by patients and visitors to the service. The service displayed posters of external organisations patients could raise complaints with or contact for support, for example, advocacy and interpreter services. The complaints process ensured that feedback or complaints were acknowledged and investigated.

Strategies were in place to address social impact and sought to resolve any potential barriers to people wishing to access the service. Patients were usually referred to the service from another unit within the Elysium organisation, or an external partner agency. The service worked with external organisations to ensure that the service and its premises were accessible to all people assessed as needing the care and treatment provided. Staff worked in partnership with experts in neurodivergent conditions, local and national integrated care boards (ICB) and learning disability organisations to improve the experience for patients using the service who may have a learning disability. The service delivered care in a way that met patients’ needs, which was accessible and promoted equality. This included people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act, people who may have enduring mental illness, and people who were in vulnerable circumstances or who had complexed needs.

Staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of people using their services. Staff supported people who had ‘protected characteristics’ in a way that complied with legal equality and human rights requirements. They considered the needs of people with different protected characteristics and made reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes. For example, by providing easy read information or adjusting medication times to people’s religious needs at times of fasting. The service had access to independent services who supported patients with communication needs.

Patients, and where appropriate their families or carers were given support for advanced care planning if required or requested. Staff supported people to express their views and wishes about the future, and these were clearly documented in their care and treatment plans. The service supported patients, and their families/carers well when planning for the future and worked collaboratively with external partners to achieve this.