Pathfinder Ashness House

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this inspection, the rating has remained good.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff demonstrated empathy and support for patients’ needs through their attitudes and behaviours during interactions.

Staff celebrated their patient’s achievements and milestones, for example, having a celebration on their birthday.

We spoke with 6 patients and 5 carers.

Most patients told us staff were kind and treated them well, although some patients shared that they did not have such a positive experience with staff and that at times they felt staff were insulting them.

A carer told us that the service was ‘the best placement they had been in’. One carer told us that their relative, ‘looks in good condition and staff are really good at picking up their needs’. However, some carers we spoke with said at times, staff could be better at communicating information.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients. Documentation was stored in locked rooms, not accessible to patients.

Staff upheld patients’ privacy and dignity. For example, patient bedroom viewing panels were seen to be closed, protecting the individual’s privacy.

The service commissioned an Advocacy service to carry out an independent survey of patients’ views about their care and treatment whilst using the service. The survey was completed in June 2025 and there was a total of 8 responses, although some of these were incomplete. The results included, one patient had confidence and trust in the nurses, support staff, doctors and psychologists at the service. One patient felt they were included in conversations about them that took place in their presence. One patient believed they had a good relationship with their support workers. When needing to express themselves to staff at the service, the majority felt they were supported. The report stated that some patient’s felt their ethnicity and religious needs were not acknowledged.

We saw at the service strived to meet people's individual needs, but there were some areas of improvement needed.

The service was not fully accessible for disabled patients, as they would be only able to access facilities on the ground floor, but the games room and multifaith room were on the first floor. It was not made clear to patients how this would be managed, if they wanted to access these rooms but were unable.

For one patient, the patient’s preferred name choice was not always followed throughout the care plan and when staff made written reference to them in care records.

We didn’t observe any information to show how people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, would be welcomed and supported at the service. However, we did find examples where the service worked to make adjustments to support patients where a need was identified. For example, staff told us about a patient who raised that lunch is served between 1-2pm but some cultures eat later, staff said they give them more time to finish lunch to support this request.

Staff told us that there wasn’t a current interpreting service in place, but this would be sourced if it was ever needed. We also did not see easy read information offered or available throughout the service.

The service was aware it was not an appropriate environment for neurodivergent patients. For example, the service did not have a sensory room or adjustable lighting. Managers completed thorough assessments before admission, ensuring patients’ needs could be met before they were admitted. They did have neurodivergent patients on the ward; however, they did not require adjustments to the environment.

The service provided a variety of food to meet the dietary and cultural needs of individual patients, although one patient told us he would like more healthier options provided too.

Patients had fortnightly ward rounds where they met with the multidisciplinary team to discuss their care and treatment.
Staff helped patients stay connected to their loved ones and maintain meaningful relationships. We saw evidence of a family visit at the time of our inspection. Carers told us there was now a vehicle that the service could use to help facilitate section 17 leave to family homes.
Staff supported patients to be more independent with their activities of daily living. For example, they assisted and encouraged their patients to do their laundry. Stakeholders fed back that the service could encourage more independence with activities of daily living as part of their discharge planning, as some patients could be dependent on hospital support rather than support within the community.
An advocate was meant to visit the service weekly, but this had not been happening regularly. The manager was following this up with the advocacy service.
We observed posters and leaflets within the service informing patients of generic advocacy.
Patients could access an Independent Mental Health Advocacy (IMHA), but the service needed to formalise their contract with the appropriate service to ensure access for patients who were detained under the Mental health Act.

Staff monitored changing risks to patient safety and well-being, as well as potential risks patients may post to themselves or others. We saw examples of multidisciplinary staff updating risk and care plans when patient needs changed.

Staff had a good understanding of their patients, including their individual needs and risk factors. For example, some patients had diabetes. Appropriate care plans were in place to support the physical health needs of these patients, as well as detailed plans for staff to follow, should there be any incidents.

Staff used de-escalation techniques to calm situations and minimise the need for physical interventions. There had been 3 situations in the last 6 months where staff had used holds to restrain a patient. None of these were prone restraints (face down). There were no instances of rapid tranquilisation being used in the last 12 months.

Most patients we spoke with said they were comfortable approaching staff with any concerns. Weekly community meetings for patients to raise any concerns were scheduled, although staff shared that attendee numbers were low.

All staff told us they felt respected, supported and valued by their colleagues and managers. Staff shared that senior managers were present and if needed would come onto the ward and help with patient care.

Staff members spoke highly of working at the service, expressing pride in their teams’ work. A carer fed back ‘staff are very calm and well trained. The care provided is excellent’

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an app, which gave access to mental wellbeing support and therapy, based on need.

Most staff told us they received support from managers when they were involved in distressing incidents.

Staff appraisals covered career development discussions, exploring ways to support professional growth. Staff shared they felt able to ask management for training opportunities where relevant to their role.