• Mental Health
  • Independent mental health service

Pine House Rehabilitation Unit

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Yorkshire Street, Bacup, OL13 9AE (01706) 619300

Provided and run by:
Kibo Hospital Services Limited

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 16 November 2023

Pine House is a mental health inpatient rehabilitation hospital in Bacup, Lancashire. The registered provider who runs this service is Kibo Hospital Services Limited who are part of the Krinvest Limited group. The hospital provides inpatient rehabilitation care and treatment to males with an acquired brain injury (ABI) or mental health needs. The service has been registered since November 2021. There are 3 wards on site.

  • Pine ward, a 4-bed ward on the ground floor.

  • Lyme ward, a 8-bed ward based on the first floor.

  • Aspen ward, a 8-bed ward based on the second floor.

At the time of our inspection there were 15 patients staying at the hospital.

The provider had reconfigured the wards since our last visit. There were 4 patients receiving care for an ABI, who were now accommodated on the same wards as people receiving care for mental health needs. Pine ward was now a pre-discharge ward.

We decided to re-inspect this service following concerns being raised to us about the safety and leadership of the hospital.

A registered manager was in post at the time of our inspection.

We last inspected this service in October 2022 and rated it as ‘good’ overall. However, we rated ‘safe’ as ‘requires improvement’ following concerns in relation to staff training. We also highlighted other areas for improvement including the layout of wards, governance systems and opportunities for patients to access the local community.

What people who use the service say

We spoke with 3 patients using the service and reviewed other information, including minutes from patient community meetings.

Patients said the ward environment was not always kept clean and repairs were not made in a timely manner. They also stated that the environment could be very noisy and that doors could regularly be heard banging.

Patients generally described positive relationships with staff but reported that there were not always enough of them to meet everyone’s needs.

Patients felt safe but found the ward could become very unsettled when other patients became distressed or aggressive. Patients had reported feeling bored at times. They also stated that opportunities to have trips off the ward were limited.

One patient said access to therapy could be inconsistent and that they didn’t feel clear about their path to discharge.

Patients generally described the food as good but stated that variety could be limited and that sometimes the food ran out.

Overall inspection

Requires improvement

Updated 16 November 2023

Our rating of this service ​went down​. We rated it as ​requires improvement​ because:

  • Wards were not always safe, clean or well maintained. Repairs did not happen quickly and the environment was not therapeutic.

  • Staff did not assess and manage risks well. Risk assessments and management plans did not address the needs of all patients. Some opportunities to prevent or minimise harm were missed.

  • Information relating to patient care and treatment was not kept up to date or easy for staff to find.

  • Staff had not always completed training to meet the specific needs of patients.

  • Incidents, including the use of restrictive interventions were not well recorded. Lessons learnt were not always identified and shared with the whole team. Managers could not be assured physical restraint was being carried out in line with guidance.

  • Managers had not ensured staff had received training necessary for their roles.

  • The service was not well-led at all levels. Governance processes did not ensure that ward procedures ran smoothly. Some audits to evaluate the quality of care provided were not completed.

  • The approach to service delivery and improvement had sometimes been reactive. This meant risks and improvements were not always managed appropriately or rectified quickly enough.

However:

  • Staff were respectful to patients and were caring in their approach.

  • Staff we spoke to were enthusiastic about the service and most felt supported in their role.

  • Some improvements had been made following our previous inspection. Leaders had an action plan for future improvements and needed time for changes to be embedded.