Avesbury House

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 assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

The ward felt welcoming, and staff–patient interactions were consistently warm and respectful. This included domestic staff, who were seen engaging naturally with patients. This helped create a calm and settled atmosphere. Patients rarely approached the nursing station directly, suggesting staff were visible and available in communal areas.

We saw staff engaging positively with patients during the inspection. Most patients told us that staff were caring and helpful. They described being able to take their agreed leave, and activities that they enjoyed. Staff demonstrated a good knowledge and understanding of patients’ individual needs. Patients had direct access to hot drinks and snacks.

Carer feedback was positive indicating good involvement in patients’ care when possible, and welcoming, approachable, flexible and professional staff. They described reasonable restrictions, approachable staff, good communication with the doctor, but slow progress to make changes.

Overall, the hospital environment was in a good state of repair and furnished comfortably. Patients were positive about the environment within the unit. They were also very positive about the food provided.

Carers described staff as warm and welcoming, adjusting to support family members travelling from far away. We found evidence of good patient involvement in their ward rounds. During a ward round we attended, staff engaged with patients in a warm and respectful way. The MDT showed a solid understanding of each patient’s needs and progress. Discussions were structured, patient‑centred, and clearly collaborative. Patients had information provided on how to access advocacy services.

Care plans stated that patients were involved in planning their care, but their voice was not clearly reflected in 2 of the 5 care plans we reviewed. There was room to make these more personalised.

Patients completed surveys on discharge. A patient representative attended patient council meetings, and the provider organisation was working to recruit lived experience partners to provide advocacy throughout the hospital. We saw evidence that patients views and requests as raised in community meetings and patient council meetings, led to changes within the hospital such as activities provided, and new equipment for the hospital.

Most staff we spoke with felt well supported by their immediate team and line managers and this was reflected in the most recent staff survey.

Patients appeared to enjoy and actively take part in occupational therapy activities. Several commented positively on the sessions, and overall engagement seemed good, showing that the programme was meaningful to them. However, some patients thought there should be more activities available at weekends.