You are here


Inspection carried out on 12-14 December 2017

During a routine inspection

We rated Chadwick Lodge as good because:

Patients had excellent access to psychological therapies. The psychology team operated a comprehensive, patient focused, individualised service (for example, by adapting therapy sessions to suit the needs of patients with autistic spectrum disorder or a learning disability). Their dialectical behaviour therapy program had been specially adapted for use in forensic services, and it linked with the cognitive behavioural therapy and trauma work. Psychology staff offered individual and group work to address offending behaviours and substance misuse. They also provided specialist treatment programs for male sex offenders and females with a history of fire setting. Members of the psychology team recently organised a national conference on the therapeutic treatment of sex offenders.

Staff received necessary training, an appraisal and regular supervision, and medical staff completed revalidation. Most staff had a high level of morale and job satisfaction. They felt supported by their peers and by managers and felt able to raise concerns without fear of victimisation. In general, staff were highly positive about the organisational transition from the Priory Group to Elysium Healthcare.

The hospital has been an accredited member of the Royal College of Psychiatry quality network for forensic mental health services, for both medium and low secure services, since 2011.

Occupational therapy was available to patients on all wards. Therapists operated a model which focused on a holistic, person centred and recovery based approach. Staff helped patients to build and maintain independence by encouraging them to participate in activities of daily living. Patients had the opportunity to undertake voluntary work, either within the hospital or in the local community, appropriate to their ability and individually assessed level of risk. Patients had access to a hospital gym and to outside space, including a courtyard area with an enclosed sports pitch.

Staff provided patients with extensive support to prepare them for admission to the hospital; moving to a different ward; or, being discharged from the hospital. Care plans we looked at were individualised, holistic, recovery focused and up to date. Occupational therapy staff were fully trained to use the model of human occupation screening tool, to help inform patient care plans. Patients had an initial physical health assessment and good access to ongoing physical healthcare.

Patients were extensively involved in their own care and the running of the service. Staff sought patient input when devising risk assessments and care plans, and patients attended meetings about their own care. Some patients had helped to devise a handbook for newly admitted peers and a DVD to inform and promote the psychological therapy program to students and other patients. Patients attended ward daily meetings, community meetings and regular forums. They were involved in the recruitment of all staff at every level and had the ability to nominate elements of the service for upcoming audits.

Staff treated patients in a caring, respectful and responsive manner. Staff displayed a high level of understanding of the individual needs and abilities of patients. Staff supported patients to maintain personal relationships during their time within the hospital. Patients had access to general and statutory advocacy services, and interpreters were available to patients as needed.

Patients had a comprehensive risk assessment on admission, which was regularly reviewed and updated. Staff applied blanket restrictions only when justified and minimised their use where possible. Staff used good policies and procedures for observing and searching patients and the ward environment, in order to minimise identified risks. All wards had a detailed ligature risk assessment in place. Most wards had anti-ligature fittings throughout.

Staff reported incidents appropriately and investigated them thoroughly. Staff met to discuss learning from incidents and received support following serious incidents. Staff used learning from incidents to inform future practice and they shared feedback on incidents with patients.

Escorted leave and ward activities were rarely cancelled due to staff shortages. Staffing levels were managed to meet changing demands on each ward. The hospital had a low number of vacancies for substantive staff. All bank workers were required to complete the same induction program and ongoing training as substantive staff. Where possible, managers attempted to deploy bank workers to wards they were familiar with.


The closed-circuit television cameras in the seclusion suite on Berridale ward did not have a protective pane of Perspex, to prevent them potentially being removed by a patient. If a patient were to remove one or more of the cameras, staff would not be able to maintain an unbroken view of the patient.

Social workers had a supervision rate below the hospital’s stated target of 85%, with a rate of 76%.

Some patients told us they sometimes found the diction of some members of staff difficult to understand and this could impact on communication between staff and patients. They told us that this was more evident with members of bank staff who were not familiar with those patients.

Some patients we spoke with were unhappy with the quality of food provided.

Some patients we spoke with told us they would like there to be more activities on offer.

Some nursing assistants we spoke with did not feel engaged with senior managers and the process of change within the hospital. They reported feeling undervalued by managers. Staff commented negatively about the introduction of a new arrangement for taking breaks.

The rehabilitation ward had a blind spot in the garden area which had not been risk assessed, the laundry room was untidy and dirty and the kitchen fridge needed de-frosting

Inspection carried out on 13th-15th December 2016

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

We rated forensic inpatient secure wards as good overall because:

  • Following our inspection in September 2015, we rated the services as good for effective, caring, responsive and well led. Since that inspection we have received no information that would cause us to re-inspect these key questions or change the ratings.
  • During this most recent inspection, we found that the services had addressed the issues that had caused us to rate safe as requires improvement following the September 2015 inspection.
  • The forensic inpatient secure wards were now meeting Regulations 12 of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

Inspection carried out on 8 - 10 September 2015

During a routine inspection

We rated Chadwick Lodge (which includes the wards at Eaglestone View) as good because:

  • Ninety-five percent of staff were up to date with mandatory training.
  • All wards were clean and well maintained.
  • All patients received detailed risk assessments and associated risk plans that were individualised and person centred.
  • The assessment of patients’ needs and planning of their care was individualised and had a focus on recovery. Physical healthcare assessments and associated plans of care were thorough and consistently delivered to a high standard.
  • There was evidence of best practice and that all staff had a good understanding of the Mental Health Act 1983, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and the associated Codes of Practice.
  • Patients had good access to psychological therapy, particularly therapy that addressed offending and self-harm behaviours.
  • Many patients were complimentary about the staff who provided the service on all of the wards, even when restrictions were in place in relation to those patients’ care and treatment.
  • Staff were caring and motivated and we saw good, professional and respectful interactions between staff and patients.
  • Initiatives were implemented to involve patients in their care and treatment. These included the ‘my shared pathway’ recovery approach to care planning and daily ward briefings with all patients and staff.
  • A number of innovative initiatives were implemented to involve patients in bringing about improvements.
  • The systems for managing the most appropriate use of beds to meet patients’ needs were effective. There was a clear care pathway through the service from medium secure wards to the least restrictive environments.
  • Staff provided the service in a way that assisted patients’ recovery and comfort.

  • Patients told us that the therapeutic activities available were creative, assisted in their recovery and were available over seven days, every week.
  • Patients had access to a variety of voluntary work opportunities within the hospital. This work was particularly helpful for patients whose significant restrictions meant that they were not permitted to leave the hospital.
  • Staff said morale was good and most staff we spoke to were enthusiastic and engaged with the care and treatment of patients on the wards.
  • The senior management and clinical teams were visible. Patients and staff knew the senior management team well throughout the service. Patients individually commended the kindness and responsiveness of the hospital director and his deputy, the clinical services manager.
  • Staff recruitment and retention scored highly on both the Chadwick Lodge and Priory Group risk registers. These risks had been mitigated which meant the provider had a strong action plan in place to address the issues.
  • The ward managers had good access to governance systems that enabled them to monitor and manage the wards safely and effectively and provide information to senior staff in a timely manner.


  • Some procedural and physical security practices were inconsistently applied across the different wards.
  • All wards had ligature risk assessments but not all areas of each ward had been completely audited.
  • The provider encouraged staff to apply least-restrictive practices but not all staff were able to articulate the rationale behind such decisions. We would expect staff to be able to describe the reasons for restrictions or their absence.
  • Not all staff held keys securely in a key pouch attached to a belt. This meant that the keys could have been mislaid.
  • Not all staff were confident in describing when to report an incident.
  • Patients raised that planning care and treatment could at times be difficult with staff who did not have English as a first language.
  • Not all staff were able to describe the complaints process. Not all staff were aware of the recording sheet for tracking informal complaints.

Inspection carried out on 1, 3 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with four people who used the service. Two people were pleased to tell us that they had been offered the opportunity to talk to staff about what it is like to have experienced mental health difficulties. This was done via a training session. They told us “staff found it really helpful”.

We spoke with staff that were knowledgeable about the needs of people they worked with and we saw staff interact with people in a friendly and respectful way.

We found that people’s health needs had been looked after and that appropriate referrals to other health care professionals had been made in a timely way. We saw that comprehensive assessments of people’s needs had been used to plan their care and treatment before admission to Chadwick Lodge/Eaglestone View and that this had sometimes required complex liaison with other services to achieve this.

We found that there was a system in place which showed that people’s complaints were listed to and acted upon.

We found that the service was well managed and well led.

Inspection carried out on 11 September 2012

During a routine inspection

We used a number of different methods to help us to understand the experiences of people using the services, because the people using the service had complex needs which meant that some people chose not to talk to us. The two people that spoke with us in private were very happy with their care and treatment. They said that the staff listened to them and cared about their welfare. They also told us that they felt safe in the hospital.

We saw that people were involved in their care and treatment, and they were positive about the gains that they had made in their recovery.

We heard staff speak with people in a way that was respectful and supportive.

Inspection carried out on 14 July 2011

During an inspection in response to concerns

People told us that they were generally well treated by staff and that staff treated them with respect.

People told us that the staff were “OK” but that there were not enough staff to allow them to have sufficient time away from their house.

A number of people who spoke to us complained about the lack of purposeful activities. One person told us that if they could change anything they would have more staff and more structured activities.

One person said that they were not able to choose their primary nurse and that if they did not get on with the nurse then there was nothing they could do about it. One person told us that they were required to be accompanied by a member of staff when they went to the theatre. On such occasions they were expected to pay for the member of staff

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)

Mental Health Act Commissioner reports

Each year, we visit all NHS trusts and independent providers who care for people whose rights are restricted under the Mental Health Act to monitor the care they provide and check that patients' rights are met. Immediate concerns raised by patients on those visits are discussed, if appropriate, with hospital staff.

Our Mental Health Act Commissioners may carry out a number of visits to each provider over a 12-month period, during which they talk to detained patients, staff and managers about how services are provided. In the past, we summarised themes from the visits and published an annual statement followed by the provider's response where applicable. We are looking at different ways to indicate the outcomes of our monitoring in the future.