Grove 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

We reviewed all 7 quality statements in the responsive key question. This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. At our last inspection in February 2023, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

Patients we spoke with felt involved in their care, they informed us they would attend their multidisciplinary team meetings. Carers and family members were also able to attend multidisciplinary team meetings alongside or on behalf of the patient (in person or via video link).

Staff we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of the patients and their individual needs. They were able to give examples of how they delivered personalised care and how they considered patients’ needs, wishes, goals and preferences.

We observed staff engaging with people in a person-centred way, adjusting their approach according to their needs.

Care plans were person-centred, and people were involved in their development and reviews.Psychology and occupational therapy staff completed specialised assessments to ensure therapeutic needs were met.

Patients had access to activities within the community and were supported to use public transport to do so.

Staff ensured that patients maintained contact with people in their local area. Staff had regular telephone contact with patients’ families, where appropriate, and health professionals. Family members, care coordinators and other key professionals involved in people’s care were all invited to multidisciplinary team meetings. The service facilitated attendance by video link if people were unable to attend in person.

Patients knew how to request information regarding their care and treatment. Staff made sure people could access information on treatment, local services, their rights and how to complain. The ward and patient and visitor access areas had notice boards with a variety of relevant information.

Leaders and managers had access to information to support them with their management role. This included information on the performance of the service, staffing and patient care. This information was presented and discussed in meetings to review performance such as clinical governance meetings.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed. For example, the service submitted statutory notifications to the Care Quality Commission in accordance with the requirements of their registration and safeguarding referrals to the local authority. This was tracked and monitored by managers and leaders and discussed during daily meetings to ensure appropriate reporting and action was taken.

People told us that they were encouraged to be involved in the development of their care and treatment and felt involved in their care. They felt listened to when they voiced their preferences or asked questions about their treatment or medication. They told us they had access to independent advocacy.

The shift-to-shift handovers, morning meetings and staff meetings provided an opportunity for staff to discuss key issues and to learn and improve the service.

Staff we spoke with understood the provider’s complaints policy. They were able to explain the complaints process and how they would support patients who wished to raise a concern. Staff told us patients were free and supported to raise concerns or complaints and could do so without fear of discrimination.

Managers investigated complaints and identified themes and staff received feedback on the outcome of the investigation of complaints and acted on the findings. For example, patients had complained about the quality of food. This was reviewed and an external catering company was appointed and the menu refreshed with feedback from patients and staff.

Referral, assessment and admission processes considered the needs of people with different protected characteristics and the service made reasonable adjustments to avoid discrimination and meet individual’s needs. The service had clear exclusion criteria to ensure they could safely support the needs of the patients. For example, the service was were unable to accept referrals for people with high levels of aggression who may require seclusion as they did not have a seclusion room.

Staff ensured patients had access to post-discharge care, for example, Section 117 aftercare, community mental health services and crisis services. Staff planned for patients’ discharge, including good liaison with care managers and coordinators.

Staff supported people with specific religious and cultural needs. The service provided a variety of food to meet the dietary and cultural needs of individuals. Staff made sure people could access information on treatment, local services, their rights and how to complain. Interpreters could be accessed as required.

Staff reviewed and discussed feedback, complaints and compliments in governance meetings. People’s feedback was collated and reviewed regularly, including any improvements made to service provision when required.

Staff completed equality and diversity training as part of their mandatory training programme.

Patients we spoke with were involved in discussions about their future and discharge planning.

Staff regularly reviewed the long-term plans for patients in terms of their treatment goals and objectives for discharge or the transfer of care to a different service, where appropriate.

There were processes in place to facilitate the planning and delivery of discharge or transfer of care and staff worked well with other professionals to ensure patients could access the services and support they needed.