Pathfinder Ashness House

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 good. At this inspection, the rating has remained good.

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.

Each patient had their own bedroom, equipped with an ensuite bathroom and privacy windows they could adjust.

Patients were allowed smart phones and other electronic equipment whilst on the ward. Staff assessed the risks of having this equipment on an individual basis.

Patients had access to a kitchen for activities of daily living sessions with the Occupational Therapy (OT), helping patients practice life skills.

Patients feedback on food offered at the service was mixed, with most patients liking something on offer. One patient told us there was not enough healthy food provided.

Staff worked with external organisations to create opportunities for patients to engage with a variety of activities. For example, a fitness session led by an external gym was put on three times per week at the service.

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with their families and carers.

Staff communicated with external services when someone was being discharged, in order to prepare the patients for discharge as well as possible.

During the inspection, we observed there was only one meeting room that was a multifunctional space. We observed meetings or visits needing to be moved around, which caused disruption to the visit or meeting. The service was planning to have an annex built to address this need.

We observed posters in relation to patients’ rights and how to complain.

The service monitored patients’ Section 132 rights under the Mental Health Act. These are requirements for hospital managers to provide detained patients with clear, accessible information about their legal rights and their detention.

Most carers told us they were in regular contact with the staff team, although some carers said it could be difficult to get in touch with specific staff for updates. Families or carers were invited to ward rounds, where appropriate. Some carers did share that they were not kept up to date with meeting times.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records. All staff had completed training on information governance awareness.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed. For example, CQC statutory notifications.

Most patients told us they did not know what their medications were or didn’t feel they had enough information about the medication they were prescribed.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, and how to complain. We observed leaflets and posters on the walls with information for patients.

In the dining room, a large board had information for patients related to the service for that day. For example, how many staff were working and what activities were taking place.

The service displayed information about how to raise a concern in patient areas. Staff understood the policy on complaints and knew how to handle them.
Managers investigated complaints and learned lessons from the results. Staff received feedback on the outcome of investigation of complaints and acted on the findings.
In the 3 months prior to the assessment, the service received 1 complaint. This complaint was acknowledged within 5 days. We reviewed this complaint, and we saw the complaint was currently being investigated and the complainant had been written to via a letter with a deadline for a formal response shared.
The service had last completed a patient survey in June 2025, where 8 patients had provided feedback.

The service accepted patients after conducting a thorough assessment, to determine if their needs could be met. For example, the service did not accept patients with mobility issues if all ground floor bedrooms were occupied as there wasn’t a lift at the service.

Staff planned for patient discharge and liaised with care coordinators and external services about discharge, although it was fed back by a stakeholder that discharge could be done more quickly, once a patient was established as ready to leave the service.

Through discussions with leaders and staff they appeared mindful about potential discrimination and inequality that might affect diverse patient groups, ensuring fair access to care and support.

Of all staff, 87.5% had received and completed training in equality and diversity. The service could have displayed more information in relation to LGTBQ+ or other areas where a patient may feel marginalised by society, to encourage a welcoming and informed environment, for both patients and staff.

Where appropriate, staff supported patients to consider longer term decisions about their care, treatment and discharge. Three patients were self-administering their own medication in preparation for discharge into the community.

Staff worked with multidisciplinary teams and relevant agencies to develop comprehensive care plans for individuals with complex needs. For example, ward staff liaised with supported accommodations and a patient’s University.