Cheadle Royal Hospital

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

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. 

Good: This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care. 

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Caring.

The provider always treats people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respects their privacy and dignity. They treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

• We completed 1 Short Observation Framework for Inspection 2 (SOFI2) observations in the service, which are structured observations which capture people’s experience of care during the on-site assessment.
• We observed staff interactions with young people that conveyed respect, kindness, patience, and understanding. They responded to requests for support and assistance when this was needed.
• Young people told us that staff were friendly, polite and treated them respectfully.
• Parents told us that staff cared about young peoples’ well-being and care, and that they had confidence in staff. They described staff as steady and good with their actions and communication.
• Parents, young people, and advocates told us that de-escalation techniques are used to avoid physical intervention.
• Stakeholders described staff as caring and person centred with young people and that they made adjustments quickly. They experienced staff as friendly and welcoming.
• We were told that when a new young person was due for admission, the other young people made a door poster to welcome them.
• We saw evidence in care records of debriefs with young people and key workers following incidents.
• Staff said they could raise concerns about difficult behaviours or attitudes towards patients without fear of the consequences.
• Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients and were observant
• Staff supported young people to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition.
• Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs.
• Young people told us that they became upset when seeing other young people distressed, and this could lead to them not feeling well-supported, cared for, or treated with dignity and respect. However, immediate changes made by the provider to treatment arrangements and the care environment at the time of the assessment addressed these concerns.

The provider treats people as individuals and makes sure their care, support and treatment meet their needs and preferences, taking account of their strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

• The service made adjustments for disabled people, for example, by ensuring disabled people’s access to premises and by meeting specific communication needs.
• We saw evidence in care records when young people had assessments and diagnosis of autism.
• Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, how to complain and so on. Woodlands ward had notice boards with information available about advocacy services, family ambassadors, and how to complain. There was a ward welcome pack that provided written information and photographs of the ward environment.
• Parents told us they were informed of encouraging signs of progress, for example when a young person responded to humour or encouragement.
• The provider has a chaplaincy service with a Minister who has qualifications in Counselling Young People and Children. The self-referral service was available for one-to-one support one day a week.
• One of the four young people we spoke to told us they had been involved in their care plan, and two young people told us that they had not seen their care plan for some time. One of these young people commented that they found the care plan format confusing.
• Young people told us they wanted to see more meal choices on the menu.

The provider promotes young people’s independence, so they know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment, and wellbeing.

• Staff facilitated choice in daytime activities and facilitated individual preferences if young people chose not to join group activities. An educational timetable was well attended. Ward trips included going to Christmas markets, cafes, a local farm, and activities such as trampolining and bowling. A colourful ward notice board displayed a range of activities in pictures. Occupational therapy staff facilitated crafting activities and cooking sessions.
• Young people were able to raise issues of concern or dissatisfaction at weekly community ward meetings. Advocates were available to support young people to voice these if they wanted these facilitated.
• There was a sensory room in the main ward area. This was unlocked and we were told that it could be accessed at any time by young people. The room had soft seating, beanbags, sensory lighting, and Bluetooth allowed young people to connect mobile phones to play their own music.

The provider listens to and understands people’s needs, views and wishes. They respond to these in that moment and will act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

• Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, young people. For example, we saw evidence of a change in practice from lessons learned about potential ingestion risks.
• Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, such as the risk of self-harm and planned care for these accordingly. We saw detailed and thorough care plans and risk assessments for complex care.
• Young people, parents and staff told us that staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when young peoples’ behaviours became heightened.
• They also told us that restraint did not always take place, and that de-briefs with young people followed incidents. However, young people reported that de-briefs did not always occur.
• Young people and parents reported a noisy and chaotic ward atmosphere at times, in which young people felt stressed. They talked about the distress they experienced through witnessing other young people in distress during treatment interventions, and this was especially difficult when it occurred over long periods of time. The provider responded to the concerns we raised with them about this, and they instigated immediate changes. They altered care and treatment arrangements to minimise distress and disruption to young people.
• The room where ward rounds were conducted was small for the number of people attending meetings and we were told that young people had voiced this to be very overwhelming.

The provider cares about and promotes the wellbeing of its staff, and they support and enable them to always deliver person centred care.

• Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Staff told us they received emails of thanks from the senior management team.
• Staff told us they felt positive and proud about working for the provider and their team. There were several comments from staff about Woodlands ward being a supportive place to work and staff spoke about a strong team with a good team spirit. Staff told us that the ward manager was focused on supporting the team.
• Leaders recognised the need for and made available additional staff support when necessary. Reflective practice sessions facilitated by a psychologist were in place for staff to help them manage times when young people were in high distress. The Woodlands ward manager arranged weekly group check-ins for staff during challenging periods.
• Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service.
• The provider recognised staff success within the service – for example, through staff awards and employee of the month.
• Staff appraisal rates for Woodlands ward were 100%.
• Woodlands staff sickness and absence were similar to the average for the provider.
• Staff appraisals and supervision included conversations about career development and how it could be supported. Health Care Assistants told us they intended to undertake nurse training, and they knew that this training could be supported by the provider through an application process.