MindOf

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We rated caring as Good because:

Patients received high quality care and support from a staff team that worked within a person-centred culture.

Parents described care and treatment tailored to their child’s individual needs. Staff communicated with people in a way that they could understand, for example, communication aids and easy read materials were available.

Staff recognised the importance of people’s dignity and respect, and this was embedded throughout care and treatment.

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.

Staff treated patients with kindness, respect and compassion.

Feedback from parents of young people and children who used the service was positive about the way staff treated them and their children. All parents told us that their child was treated with dignity, respect and kindness.

Patients received high quality care and support from a staff team that worked within a person-centred culture. Staff asked about and understood patients’ personal, cultural, social and religious needs.

Parents described care and treatment tailored to their child’s individual needs. For example, parents described obtaining emergency prescriptions from the service.

Staff displayed an understanding and non-judgmental attitude to all parents, children and young people that used their service. Staff demonstrated and empathy when speaking about the patients.

Parents we spoke with told us the information staff shared with them was helpful and aided them to understand their child’s condition.

The service offered evening and weekend appointments for parents and patients that could not attend during the day.

The service sought feedback on the quality of clinical care patients received. Parents and young people were asked to complete a feedback questionnaire after each session. The service had recognised that this was an area they could further develop as there were limited response from the questionnaires sent out within the last 12 months.

Evidence indicated that staff treated people as individuals and made sure their care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences. This took into account their strengths, abilities, backgrounds and any protected characteristics.

Patients who had mobility issues were able to access the service as it was located on the ground floor. At the point of referral to the service patients were asked to detail any specific requirements they may have so that any adjustments could be made by staff on site.

Staff communicated with people in a way that they could understand, for example, communication aids and easy read materials were available. Information leaflets were available in easy read formats, to help parents and young people be involved in decisions about their care. Leaflets were adapted for children and young people accessing the service.

Staff tailored the service depending on the age of the child. Younger children were usually offered an appointment jointly with their parent and younger people were offered joint and individual sessions dependant on their needs.

Interpretation services were available for patients and parents who did not have English as a first language.

The service shared information with patients’ parents so that they knew their rights and that they had a choice and control over their care and treatment of their child.

People we spoke with said that they felt listened to and supported by staff and their child had sufficient time during consultations to be informed about the choice of treatment available to them. They said that the consultant psychiatrist used their knowledge and experience to explain care and treatment in a way they understood and responded to their individual queries and questions promptly.

Records and feedback from parents showed that staff asked about and recorded people's needs, views and wishes. During the inspection we highlighted that the young person’s voice could be more detailed in their clinical notes and reports. After the inspection, the service had incorporated headings into their clinical notes and report templates to ensure that the young person’s voice was captured during each session in addition to the parent’s views.

Clinical staff could clearly outline how they responded and managed changing risks too, or posed by, patients. Where the service could not meet the need of a patient, they referred patients on to other services in a timely way.

Evidence showed that the service cared about and promoted the well-being of its staff. Staff were supported and enabled to deliver person centred care.

Staff said they felt respected, supported and valued. They said they were proud to work for the service and described working in a culture of the focused on meeting the individual needs of the patients and their families.

Staff were supported in their development and clinical practice through supervision and training. This also included appraisal and career development conversations, which all staff had received in the last year.

Staff accessed weekly peer reviews to discuss and reflect on their clinical practice. Staff were also able to access external peer supervision groups.