St Andrews Healthcare Northampton

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 as good. This meant people's outcomes were consistently good, and people's feedback confirmed this.

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.

We reviewed 9 patient care records. Staff completed a comprehensive mental health assessment of the patient soon after admission. Staff used The Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) and The Threshold Assessment Grid (TAG) to measure health and social care outcomes and to identify an individual's mental health problems and determine suitability for further psychological treatment.

Care plans were comprehensive, personalised and holistic. Patient involvement within care planning was seen within some areas such as "keeping myself safe" and patients expressed their goals and targets. Care plans were written in a way that patients could understand and were discussed and explained with patients during one-to-one support time. Care plans were reviewed regularly or when changes were made due to incidents or discussion within multidisciplinary meetings. Care plans incorporated assessed risks and associated management plans. Staff assessed and monitored physical health well using the National Early Warning Score tool (NEWS).

Staff we spoke with were able to describe the assessment process and their involvement in it. They were able to describe how they were informed of the outcomes of assessments and how associated care and risk management plans were shared with them.

Personalised positive behavioural support (PBS) plans were in place for patients. Plans recognised strengths and challenges identified by the patient and ways staff could help them when they became distressed or upset.

Patients we spoke with had a clear understanding of their care and treatment and were confident in who to approach for information. Carers, with consent of the patient were supported to be involved in their relative's care and treatment including attending multidisciplinary team meetings.

Staff delivered care and treatment in line with best practice. Staff we spoke with were able to describe the range of professional input, treatment and care options available to patients in line with national guidance.

Staff were experienced, qualified and trained appropriately to meet the needs of the patient group. New starters received a corporate induction and relevant training. Mandatory training was refreshed annually or when additional support was required. Staff supervisions were held every 4 weeks with managers. From the data that we had requested at the time of assessment, staff supervisions were at 100% across the three months of December 2024 to February 2025 apart from Bayley which was at 95% in the month of January 2025.

Patients had individual activity plans and therapies. Staff monitored and reviewed meaningful activity and engagement to ensure patients interests were met. Psychologists and occupational therapists provided a range of sessions to meet patients' rehabilitation needs such as mental health awareness and substance misuse.

Staff told us that although there had been low patient numbers across all 3 wards, psychology, occupational therapy and activities were still accessible and planned as normal. Staff delivered care in line with best practice and national guidance with service policies written in line with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. There were governance structures to review and disseminate new guidance. Wards completed clinical audits to ensure compliance with relevant standards and guidance.

Staff from different disciplines worked together as a team and attended regular multidisciplinary team meetings and daily risk meetings to plan, monitor and make decisions on patients care and treatment plans. Patients who were discussed had additional meeting notes recorded within their electronic patient record. Patients and family members were invited and attended these meetings whenever possible.

We observed good quality interactions between staff and patients. Staff were always present and available for patients offering a range of activities on the ward. Information was displayed on ward notice boards relating to care, advocacy access, activities, communication needs and how to provide? feedback on care.

Staff made it a priority to ensure that handover meetings prior to a shift change were held and attended by all staff required. Staff shared clear information about patients and any changes in their care and referenced documents to be read, such as changes in care plans and daily record entries.

Patients told us they were supported by the staff team and attended multidisciplinary team meetings. Patients felt comfortable speaking to staff about their treatment and received information when they requested it. Their care was coordinated, and everyone involved in their care worked well with them.

Patient referrals to the service were currently working in line with an NHS directive, to accept referrals which were within 50-mile radius to help ensure patients kept in contact with their families and community care teams. Staff had access to policies and procedures to support transitions and pathways into and out of the service.

Staff encouraged patients to be involved in their care and supported them to make decisions about their care and treatment including healthier lifestyle choices, where possible. Staff told us they understood the importance of ensuring patients’ physical health needs were met. Staff received appropriate training including training to support interventions and utilised the NEWS2 system to highlight any risk of deterioration in patients. Staff discussed physical health with patients as part of those checks and in ongoing care reviews.

The service provided a GP and dentist surgery on site which patients could access with the support of staff. This elevated anxieties that patients may have by travelling outside of the hospital to access the services.

Occupational therapists arranged sporting activities such as football and box fit. Each ward had access to a communal outside area, a gym room that was open for patients to use, and an additional larger gym outside the wards that could be used with support of staff. The service held a psychology group that provided support in breathing techniques and progressive muscle relaxation.

Patients had access to information on making healthier choices including food and lifestyle choices. The service did not allow cigarettes to be smoked but did allow patients to use vape pens. Staff were very active in promoting smoking cessation programmes.

Patients told us that staff were available to discuss their treatment in a way that they understood. Patients said that they were able to make their own decisions in their care and knew they were provided with the correct information.

Ward rounds were held twice weekly which promoted patients' health and wellbeing. Patients could attend the ward rounds where their treatment progress was reviewed and discussed.

The patients we spoke with felt informed about their care and treatment, they were confident they could speak with their named nurse or the doctor if they required additional information.

Staff told us treatment plans were evidence based and monitored for outcomes. Care plans measured patient outcomes, goals and plans were evidence based, and multi-disciplinary team members monitored outcomes to drive continued improvement. They were based on national guidance and staff used recognised rating scales to assess and record the severity of patient conditions and care and treatment outcomes. The service completed Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) for patients. Staff monitored and assessed patients' needs, which enabled them to keep improving. Lessons learnt from incidents and positive patient outcomes were shared, which helped to improve the service.

Staff demonstrated good knowledge and had completed mandatory training of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and consent to treatment. All patients were encouraged and supported to have input into their treatment and care plan. If staff had concerns around patients’ capacity to consent, they knew what actions to take. Staff said they always ensured that patients understood what their rights were under the Mental Health Act. They would inform patients of their rights when they were first admitted and throughout their admission.

We reviewed 9 patient care and treatment plans. We found they were all detailed, person centred, gave an overview of patients and found evidence of capacity being assessed and considered.

Patients we spoke with felt informed about their care and treatment, they were confident they could speak with their named nurse or the doctor if they required additional information. Patients we spoke with were aware of independent mental health advocacy services that visited the ward.