Archived: St Andrews Healthcare Northampton

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people's needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

Staff members we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of their patients. They were able to give examples of how they delivered personalised care and how they considered patients individual needs, goals and preferences. Care plans were developed around patients' needs and were personalised based on individual patients' recovery and rehabilitation goals.

Patients had a PBS plan which described specific ways that staff could support the patient if they became upset or distressed. Patients told us they felt their care was coordinated and staff worked well with them. They were encouraged to be involved in their care, treatment plan and were supported to give feedback during multidisciplinary team meetings, ward rounds and one to one support sessions.

We observed staff engaging with patients in a caring and person-centred way, adjusting their approach according to the patient's needs. Information was displayed around the ward informing patients of different treatment, care, and therapeutic options, along with how to give feedback on care. Occupational therapists were observed interacting with patients and arranging activities within the wards and community areas. Activities for patients were centred on each patient's own interests and needs, such as a baking group. This would then be reviewed regularly with the patients at clinical meetings.

Some patients we spoke with felt involved in their care, being able to attend their multidisciplinary team meetings and share their views. However out of the 8 patients we spoke to 2 patients told us that they were involved but it was not tailored to them. Patients shared that they were not provided with information quick enough and were not happy with their conditions regarding leave from the wards.

Staff were able to explain the process and pathways for admissions, transfers of care and discharges. The service had processes in place to help involve internal and external professionals to ensure patients received continuity in care, including appropriate discharge and after care. All ward rounds were attended by a multi-disciplinary team and care programme approach (CPA) meetings included services that may be required at discharge, including community mental health teams.

Patients told us they felt their care was coordinated well and they were encouraged to be involved in the development of their care and treatment. Staff told us they encouraged the family members and relevant partners to attend the patient ward rounds with the consent of the patient. They always aimed to be inclusive and person-centred valuing the person, their opinions, and cultural needs. Effective evidence-based care and treatment along with the sharing of accurate information, ensured continuity of care for the patient.

Upon admission, patients received a welcome pack consisting of information about the ward and the care provided at the service. The service had access to translation services and provided information leaflets in languages spoken by the patient and local communities.

Staff told us the needs of patients were continually assessed with information shared in a format that was accessible and met patients' communication needs. Referral and admission documentation captured patient communication requirements and preferences which supported staff, with the creation of a communication support plan to ensure patients had their needs met. Numerous resources including leaflets and interpreter services were available to ensure the patients understood their treatment and medication plans.

Patients we spoke with told us they had access to the information they needed, and it was given to them in formats that were best suited to them such as large print, the use of pictures and translated texts. Staff were able to provide 1:1 support with patients to ensure they understood the information.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as required, including notifications to the CQC.

Patients said they felt listened to by staff and were able to raise a concern if required. Patients knew how to complain if they needed to and were able to give feedback on the service via patient surveys, ward rounds and community meetings.

The provider had implemented a service where patients were able to share feedback to the provider called "Myvoice" This anonymous service allowed patients the opportunity to answer 10 questions with a scoring scale between 1-10. Additional written statements and feedback within "What we do well" and "What we can do better" could also be provided for further context. This information would be collated and discussed within the providers governance meetings to help build the service within patients input. A similar service is due to be implemented to support parents and carers which will allow them to have additional input towards the service.

There was a complaints policy and process in place. Managers and senior staff had been trained to complete complaint investigations when this was required. Complaints were monitored at a divisional level to identify themes and trends and monitor responses. Staff we spoke with understood the provider's complaints policy. They were able to explain the complaints process and how they would support patients, family and carers who wished to raise concerns. Information about feedback on care and the complaints process were displayed on patient information boards.

Feedback from complaints was shared with patients, family and carers. They were kept up to date during the process and were informed of the outcome if appropriate. Compliments were used within the service as a chance to reflect on practice and to improve the quality of care. The service recorded compliments received from patients, families and carers to reflect upon and with aims for them not to be repeated.

Patients felt involved in their care and were listened to when they voiced their preferences and asked questions about their treatment or medication. Patients knew how to feedback on their care and the service. They attended weekly ward community meetings and had access to an independent advocate.

Referral criteria were inclusive for males aged 18 or over with the average length of stay being 30 days. Staff ensured patients had access to post-discharge care such as section 117 aftercare, community mental health services and care coordinators from the local NHS teams.

Staff worked as part of a multi-disciplinary team, so patients had access to a range of professionals within the hospital including a psychologist, occupational therapist, a GP and dentist. Each discipline was able to work with the patient individually to help deliver holistic treatment.

Staff were aware of the reasonable adjustments they could make and how to source additional specialist advice or equipment when required. It was observed that Naseby due to having a different layout out compared to the other two wards with the bedroom areas on a second floor, would not be able to accept referrals of patients whose mobility was limited and those who used a wheelchair, as there was no lift in place.

The service had various internal auditing processes in place including care planning, reducing restrictive practice and environmental audits to ensure patient outcomes were being met.

In addition, the service conducted regular internal audits of the service completed by the service quality improvement lead. The service complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, and had regard to people with different protected characteristics and made reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes. Staff supported patients and staff with religious or spiritual needs including supporting access to places of worship and offering cultural and religious specific foods. Patients felt involved in their care and treatment with their preferences in outcomes and planning for the future considered at ward review and discharge meetings.

Staff told us the management team promoted a positive and celebrated diverse culture and completed mandatory training around bias and inclusion.

Staff told us processes were in place to ensure all relevant individuals were involved in planning and preparing for patient discharges. This included community teams and family members if the patient was being discharged back home. The medical team and staff would ensure all individuals involved in the patients care had access to discharge information and a detailed plan was developed with the patient and partners. This ensured patient choices and preferences were always accounted for within discharge plans.

Care plans were developed collaboratively with members of the multidisciplinary team based on the service model with clear focused goals and outcomes. Care plans were personalised, holistic and recovery oriented in line with their mental and physical health needs, they would be reviewed and updated when there were changes to a patient’s health or due to incidents.