Dartmouth 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

At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. 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.

This key question has been rated as good. This meant people's outcomes were consistently good, and people's feedback confirmed this. Staff provided people with care, treatment and support that was evidence-based and in line with good practice standards. Information was shared between teams and services to ensure continuity of care. Staff involved people in regularly reviewing their health and wellbeing needs, where appropriate and necessary.

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 provider made sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they checked, and discussed people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

We reviewed care records for 5 people. Staff completed care plans for each person, which were person centred. These were reviewed by the multidisciplinary team in people’s ward round meetings with them. People told us they had a care plan, and they were involved in developing these.

The provider planned and delivered people's care and treatment with them, including what is important and matters to them and in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The occupational therapist developed people's plans in line with current good practice of mental health rehabilitation services.

Staff assessed people's risk of falls and risk of choking to ensure people received the support they needed. People had access to physiotherapy and a speech and language therapist who assessed people for risk of choking.

The hospital employed an assistant psychologist who was supervised by a clinical psychologist who visited the hospital weekly and also led reflective practice sessions with staff. The assistant psychologist facilitated individual and group therapy sessions with people. The clinical psychologist ensured people's care and treatment was in line with evidence-based practice. However, the hospital would benefit from a clinical psychologist contracted for more hours to provide further therapy and input for people.

Staff received the support they needed to deliver safe care. Staff told us they could access individual and group supervisions. They could access weekly reflective practice sessions with the psychologist. There were handovers between each shift and monthly staff meetings. As of 22 May 2025, the provider reported a compliance rate of 96% for clinical and management supervision and 80% for appraisals.

The provider worked effectively across teams and services to support people, making sure they only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when they moved between different services.

Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan and deliver people’s care, treatment and support. There was a detailed handover between each shift to share information about people’s needs and risks.

The discharge coordinator from the local integrated care board attended people’s Care Programme Approach (CPA) review meetings. This helped to ensure the person’s needs were assessed to maintain continuity of care and they shared information with any future placements for the person.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing so they could maximise their independence, choice and control, live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People told us that staff supported them to go to the gym, swimming and out for walks. We saw on the activities board there were activities to encourage people to exercise in ‘Move May.’ A staff member was a “physical health lead”. Staff told us that people’s physical health needs were discussed in staff away days to promote learning and good practice. We observed in the handover between shifts that staff discussed the monitoring of individuals blood sugar, and a person was referred to the local diabetic clinic. People’s records showed they had been supported by smoking cessation services.

Staff told us how they encouraged people to try new foods that were healthier in ‘taster sessions’, supported people to go to the gym, swimming, football and join the walking group. They were also starting a running group as some people had expressed an interest in this. The menus had been updated with healthier choices and staff encouraged people when shopping for their own meals to try healthier options.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it and to ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

There were effective approaches to monitor people’s care and treatment and their outcomes. Leaders told us they tracked complaints and compliments to monitor outcomes for people. They also tracked people’s feedback from other sources, for example, community meeting minutes.

People’s records showed that recognised occupational therapy tools were used to monitor people’s progress and outcomes with their rehabilitation. Records showed an evaluation of the person’s progress in their CPA review.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when they delivered person-centred care and treatment.

People’s records reviewed showed that staff had completed capacity assessments to make specific decisions about their care and treatment. These showed the person was involved, and their family where appropriate. Where people lacked capacity to consent to a specific decision, records showed that assessments were completed to ensure decisions were made in the person’s best interest.

People told us they had access to advocates who supported them with decisions where needed and helped them to understand their rights. People’s records showed they were informed of their rights in a way they could understand.