• Mental Health
  • Independent mental health service

Archived: Park Villa Independent Hospital

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

268 Park Lane, Macclesfield, Cheshire, SK11 8AE (01625) 501314

Provided and run by:
Partnerships in Care 1 Limited

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 13 April 2018

Park Villa is a community-based independent hospital providing rehabilitation and recovery for up to 11 women aged between 18 and 65 years, with severe and enduring mental health needs.

The service was managed by Partnerships In Care 1 Limited which formed part of the Priory Group. The hospital had a registered manager and a nominated individual. At the time of the inspection, the registered manager was on maternity leave. There were interim management arrangements in place.

Park Villa was registered for the following regulated activities:

  • assessment or medical treatment for persons detained under the Mental Health Act 1983
  • diagnostic and screening procedures
  • treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

We have inspected Park Villa on three occasions, with the last inspection taking place in November 2015. On that inspection, the hospital was rated as good overall and across all key question areas (safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led); and we found it was meeting the required standards. These ratings were displayed at Park Villa and on the provider’s website.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 13 April 2018

We rated Park Villa as good because:

  • There was enough staff to provide care and treatment to patients at Park Villa.
  • Patients’ risk assessments were well completed and reviewed.
  • There were minimal significant incidents but when incidents did occur, staff learnt lessons.
  • Staff carried out regular physical health checks with patients.
  • Care plans were well completed, personalised and holistic.
  • There was good multidisciplinary working with thorough occupational therapy assessment and input.
  • Staff were adhering to the Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act.
  • Comments from patients on the standards of care and treatment were universally positive.
  • Patients were involved in identifying their recovery goals and developing their care plans.
  • There were regular weekly patient community meetings occurring for patients to discuss day to day issues.
  • Staff were focused on patients’ recovery and worked to discharge patients with all patients having discharge goals.
  • Staff had regular contact with community mental health team professionals and the hospital had links with the wider community.
  • There were minimal numbers of patient complaints but when complaints were made they were managed well.
  • Staff morale was good and there was good local leadership.
  • Governance arrangement and checks in place were largely good.

However:

  • While staff were ensuring that safety building checks were taking place, we found a small number of shortfalls which staff had not identified or addressed.
  • Staff had carried out fire drills but two out of three recent fire drills showed a delay in evacuating the building with no remedial action.
  • Staff were still not carrying out a Mental Capacity Act audit which we raised as a recommendation on the last inspection and we saw some minor shortfalls.
  • Patients were sometimes discussed in formal meetings without patients being present.