You are here

Archived: John Munroe Hospital - Rudyard

The provider of this service changed - see new profile


Inspection carried out on 23rd to 24th February 2015

During a routine inspection

  • There were potential ligatures around the hospital but there were no up to date ligature audit that identified those risks and produced an action to plan to remove or how to reduce those risks to people living in the hospital.
  •  Emergency equipment and medical devices were not regularly checked across the hospital to ensure that they were in working order for use in emergencies.
  •  Wards experienced short staffing sometimes which impacted on patients been able to access escorted leave. The hospital had recognised this and was actively trying to recruit new staff.
  •  There were individualised risk assessments with care plans that were updated regularly to reflect people’s changing needs.
  •  People’s physical health was monitored and well managed across the hospital.
  •  Staff was up to date with their statutory and mandatory training
  •  Staff did not regularly receive supervision to support them in their daily practice
  •  There were no formal mental capacity assessments to explain how patient’s capacity had been assessed.
  •  Patients were treated with dignity and respect by staff.
  •  The hospital regularly checked the views of people using the service.
  •  Admissions and discharges were well planned with the involvement of families, carers, and care coordinators.
  •  Patients were cared for in comfortable and well-furnished surroundings.
  •  Collaborative multi-disciplinary teams were involved in the care and treatment of patients in the wards and hospital.
  •  Information on how to complain was displayed around the hospital but informal complaints were not logged by the wards.
  •  Whilst staff could not articulate the hospitals visions and values they could describe the objectives of their wards and how they contributed to achieving them.
  •  Staff said they felt supported by the hospital managers and each other.
  •  The hospital had development plans to improve risk assessments and care planning

Inspection carried out on 2, 5 August 2013

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we spoke with eight people who used the service, eight members of staff and a visiting health care professional. We also spoke with the acting hospital manager and the medical director.

We saw that people’s consent to care and treatment was gained in accordance with legislation, and people were given the opportunity to raise concerns about their care and treatment.

We saw that people’s care needs were met in a caring and professional manner and people were encouraged to maintain their independence. Some people told us that they were often bored and we saw limited evidence of ward based activity provision.

We saw that effective systems were not in place to ensure that medicines were stored and administered safely. This meant people were not always protected from the risks associated with medicines.

We saw that people received care and treatment from staff who were supported by the provider to receive the training they required. Staff underwent appropriate recruitment checks to make sure they were suitable to work with the people at the hospital.

People’s care records were not always kept up to date, which placed them at risk of receiving inconsistent or unsafe care.

Inspection carried out on 7 February 2013

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

We previously inspected this service on 3 June 2012 and found the registered provider needed to make improvements in relation to ensuring people received dignified care; people having relevant information about their care and how safeguarding was managed. On this inspection we needed to check that improvements had been made. The inspection was unannounced, which meant the registered provider and the staff did not know we were coming.

A compliance inspector, a care quality commission national advisor for safeguarding and a mental health act commissioner (MHAC) carried out this inspection. This was to ensure we were able to obtain a wide range of evidence to support our judgements.

We found improvements had been made and people we spoke with had positive comments to make about the service and the staff supporting them. People were aware of their detained status and when it ended.

The registered person had made appropriate referrals to the safeguarding team and to us, and had has liaised with the local authority and other professionals to investigate events. This meant they had included other professionals when needed.

Inspection carried out on 7 June 2012

During a routine inspection

The John Munroe Hospital is an independent mental health hospital providing care and treatment for up 55 people. Most people are detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, others were not and were informal patients, free to leave if they wished.

We spoke with eight people using the service in private. They all had positive comments to make about the hospital and the staff supporting them. They talked about the recent Silver Jubilee weekend and were keen to tell us how they had enjoyed the preparations, parties and barbecue that had been arranged with their involvement.

People had made comments in a weekly information sheet about the event, one said: "I went for long walks every day this week. I found the walks very nice and they've got easier. I did the quiz this morning and I won. I had my hair done in two French plaits and bobble to hold them in place. I like having my hair done like this. We had a Jubilee party and barbecue I had beef burger, chicken and a cup of lager. I even wore a Untion Jack party hat. I had a lovely time and thought the decorations were really nice."

One person said to us "Although I am detained under Section 3 I have come to realise that you can be happy here. The staff are good and I can't complain about the place."

There was a new and enthusiastic management team and many improvements are being made at the hospital to improve patient experience and quality of life for people.

Some improvements were needed in the area of safeguarding reporting and clarity for people to ensure they were fully aware of their detained status and when it ended.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)

Mental Health Act Commissioner reports

Each year, we visit all NHS trusts and independent providers who care for people whose rights are restricted under the Mental Health Act to monitor the care they provide and check that patients' rights are met. Immediate concerns raised by patients on those visits are discussed, if appropriate, with hospital staff.

Our Mental Health Act Commissioners may carry out a number of visits to each provider over a 12-month period, during which they talk to detained patients, staff and managers about how services are provided. In the past, we summarised themes from the visits and published an annual statement followed by the provider's response where applicable. We are looking at different ways to indicate the outcomes of our monitoring in the future.