Kneesworth House

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.

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

Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness. They respected patients’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of patients and supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff involved patients in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

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.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We observed staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients, they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it.

We observed positive staff interactions. Staff were kind and respectful and knew their patients well. Patients told us they were treated with kindness and respect and went out of their way to help them. Carers told us the staff were caring, considerate, kind and respectful.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff directed patients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services.

Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients. Patient confidential information was held on files in a computer system and staff accessed using their own username and password.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The patients in the bungalows had very bespoke environments to meet their individual physical and emotional needs. Staff used sign language and communication story books to communicate with their patients.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, how to complain and so on. The hospital had a patient engagement officer who organised patient events. There were community meetings on each ward and a patient council meeting that representatives from each ward attended. Patients told us they knew how to complain.

The information provided was in a form accessible to the patient group. We saw in the bungalows that information was in an easy read and picture format. A patient in 1 of the bungalows was keen to show us the folders which their staff had made for them.

Patients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances. On Wortham ward patients had a choice of menus available. All patients had the opportunity to shop and cook for themselves if risk assessed as safe to do so. A carer told us they make their own choice of food because staff take them shopping.

Staff ensured that patients had access to appropriate spiritual support. Staff told us they supported patient’s personal needs such as attending religious worship. Patients told us their religious needs were catered for, and they had the opportunity to attend church.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

In care records we saw patients had been read their rights regularly. Psychology staff told us how patients had a choice of whether they attended group therapy sessions or individual sessions on the wards. Patients told us they were involved in their care and treatment, there was enough information about care, and posters on the wards about how to access an advocate.

Patients in the bungalows were involved in cleaning their own homes. One patient in the bungalow was partially sighted, staff had placed orange stickers on the corner of the walls so they could walk independently, another had Astroturf so they could use their garden safely. A patient in the bungalow attended the tea club in the hospital grounds 3 times a week independently. Occupational therapists risk assessed patients, so they can self-medicate and cook independently. One patient in the bungalow had their own front door key.

Staff told us how patients had choices and support around their clothes and sexuality. In social clubs they had discussions about gender issues. Patients could access the activity centre, smoking area, and there was a gym on site at Holland House. Patients had their own lockers for their personal belongings including mobile phones which they can use in their room for privacy.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues. Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, patients. We saw in care records that any changes were updated in care plans and risk assessments and staff told us that any changes were discussed in handover meetings.

Staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical intervention when patients’ behaviours became heightened. Physical interventions were rare on Wortham ward. In the bungalows we saw from records and staff told us that verbal de-escalation was used firstly and then light holds.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled

Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Staff felt positive and proud about working for the hospital and their team. Managers told us that abusive behaviour was not tolerated and any incidents reported to police. Staff members were supported by the police liaison officer and counselling service. Staff told us they had a good team who were welcoming and had very good morale.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health and received reflective practice. Staff told us they were able to meet their own personal needs such as attending religious worship and cultural festivals.

Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported. Staff were supported with specialist training in what they wanted to do.