Thornford Park

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 patients’ needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

Good: This meant patients’ 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.

We make sure patients are at the centre of their care and treatment choices and we decide, in partnership with them, how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs.

We saw staff working with patients to provide care with regards to their own preferences and needs. This included discreet use of observations and sensitive support with personal care. Patients said staff tried to help them and knew they were acting in their best interests.

Staff gave patients relevant information to make choices to influence their care and empower them. For example, exploring alternative methods of expressing distress with patients who self-harm.

We understand the diverse health and care needs of patients and our local communities, so care is joined-up, flexible and supports choice and continuity

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with their families and carers. Some patients said staff facilitated calls, including video calls, to enable contact with their loved ones.

When patients had escorted S17 leave outside of the hospital staff accompanied patients to ensure they could participate in community activities.

We provide appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that we tailor to individual needs.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed. For example, we saw evidence of completed safeguarding referrals to the local authority.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patients’ records. We saw evidence of information being stored securely.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights and how to complain. This information could be made available in languages spoken by patients.

Staff ensured carers, families and commissioners were regularly updated about the person’s progress. We saw evidence of completed permission to share forms to enable safe sharing of information if the person gave their consent.

We make it easy for patients to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. We involve them in decisions about their care and tell them what’s changed as a result.

Staff said themes and trends identified by complaints from patients were investigated and actions taken as appropriate. Patients said they felt listened to by staff and were encouraged to share their views.

Patients knew how to complain or raise concerns. For example, patients told us about accessing advocacy services and calling the CQC with a Mental Health Act complaint.

When patients complained or raised concerns, they received feedback. The ward managers said staff held community meetings for patients to share concerns and updates.

Staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately and received feedback on the outcome of investigation of complaints and acted on the findings.

We make sure that everyone can access the care, support and treatment they need when they need it.

Staff ensured the needs of patients with mobility issues were met. All ward areas were on ground level.

There was medical cover day and night, a doctor could attend the ward quickly in an emergency and the hospital was within a reasonable travelling distance to the local acute hospital.

Staff ensured patients had access to post-discharge care – for example, S117 aftercare, community mental health services and crisis services. We saw evidence of this being planned at a MDT meeting.

Staff planned for patients’ discharge, including good liaison with care managers and care co-ordinators.

The provider never delayed discharges for other than clinical reasons. However, discharges were sometimes delayed due to lack of placements for patients to move on to. For example, there were patients waiting for repatriation to suitable services in their own locality. Staff worked with locality commissioners and care coordinators to address these issues.

Staff recognised there was a shortage of beds in NHS acute mental health wards for patients to move on to following a stay on PICU.

We actively seek out and listen to information about patients who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. We tailor the care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the patients using the service felt empowered to give their views.

The provider had undertaken equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not discriminate against vulnerable patients or patients with protected characteristics.

Staff are trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights.

We support patients to plan for important life changes, so they can have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Staff supported patients to make decisions about their care and treatment and their future. For example, we saw evidence of debriefs for patients following use of restraint. This was reviewed with the aim of learning from incidents and what the person may like staff to do differently.

Staff created personalised care plans to account for the person’s needs, wishes and feelings and ensured that all staff were involved in planning the care and treatment of patients with complex needs.