Kneesworth House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

At this assessment the rating has remained good. Staff managed beds well. A bed was available when a patient needed one. Patients were not moved between wards except for their benefit. Patients did not have to stay in hospital when they were well enough to leave. The design, layout, and furnishings of the ward supported patients’ treatment, privacy and dignity. Staff supported patients with activities outside the service, such as work, education and family relationships. The service met the needs of all patients including those with a protected characteristic. Staff helped patients with communication, advocacy and cultural and spiritual support. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the result.

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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff we spoke with knew their patients well, they explained how they discussed their needs and preferences at handover meetings and at multi-disciplinary team meetings. We observed when we toured the bungalows how well staff knew each individual they cared for as they explained to us their likes and dislikes, including activities and foods they enjoyed. One patient we met had just returned from their job in the community and proudly showed us their bungalow, the food they liked to eat in the kitchen, pictures on the walls showing activities they had participated in and a drum kit in one of their rooms they enjoyed playing.

We observed that patients could personalise their rooms. The patient social club held themed days for example a celebration of Diwali and African Heritage Day.

In the bungalows each patient had a bespoke package of care and support dependant on their individual needs. We observed person centred communication plans, for one patient his communication needs staff met by using social stories.

Staff designed discharge packages with the patient to ensure they met their individual needs. One patient was to move with his staff whom he knew well, as part of their transition plan. In each bungalow the patients’ individual sensory needs were catered for, 1 patient had a trampoline, another moving lights on the floor. Staff in the bungalows used a daily sheet so that patients could make choices about their day and what they wished to do.

There was a full team of psychologists and occupational therapists who work alongside ward staff to ensure patients’ needs and preferences were met including regular trips into the community.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Patients had access to education and work opportunities. One patient in the bungalow had a paper round, a patient on Wortham ward had been working in the communal garden pressure washing the area. There was a café on the hospital grounds which patients from the wards volunteered to serve other patients. Patients coproduced events for the social club. Patients also volunteered on the grounds of the hospital carrying out gardening and animal care.

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with their families and carers. Carers we spoke to told us they were fully involved with patients in the bungalows and were invited to attend multidisciplinary team meetings. However, on Wortham ward carers told us it was difficult to get through to the ward and communications were not regular enough.

Staff supported patients to access their chosen place of worship within the community. Patients told us their religious needs were catered for and had an opportunity to attend church. The church chaplain visited Wortham ward every week and there was a roman catholic church nearby.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed. Staff held confidential information for patients on computers, and each staff had their own password to access the data.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights and how to complain. On Wortham ward we saw posters advising how patients could complain and how they could access an advocate.

Information was available in an easy read format for patients who needed it. In the bungalows staff explained how each patient had their own communication plan dependent on their individual needs. A carer of a patient at one of the bungalows told us how they were invited to online meetings, communication was good, and the clinical staff explained everything well.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Between January and August 2025 there were 6 complaints made by patients on Wortham ward, 2 not upheld, 1 was partially upheld and 1 was withdrawn. Two complaints were received in August, but these had not been investigated as we carried out our assessment during this month. Themes from complaints were about quality of care, medical and discharge concerns. The hospital told us a reoccurring complaint by patients was the hospital food which was under review and currently provided off site.

No reported complaints referred to the Ombudsman in the last 12 months.

We saw posters displayed, advising patients how to complain and patients told us they knew how to complain. The hospital had a patient engagement officer, and each ward held community meetings. The hospital had a patient council meeting which patient elected representatives from each ward invited to attend, these meetings attended by the hospital director, clinical director and security staff.

Staff on Wortham ward explained to us how they managed complaints on the ward, firstly staff would try and resolve the complaint and if not assist the patient to complain formally.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service had adequate medical cover day and night, a doctor could attend the ward quickly in an emergency and the hospital was within a reasonable travelling distance to 2 local acute hospitals.

Staff ensured the needs of patients with mobility issues were met. The bungalows were accessible and patients with mobility issues had a bedroom on the ground floor in Wortham ward. While we were on Wortham ward we saw how the hospital were updating their bathrooms to enable patients with mobility issues to be able to use the facilities.

Staff planned for patients’ discharge, including good liaison with care managers. Discharge was discussed at weekly multidisciplinary team meetings and there was regular communication with the new service.

Staff told us about a planned transition for 1 patient from the bungalow, there was a multidisciplinary team approach to ensure it was suited to their individual needs. Transition included the new staff visiting the patient and spending time with them in the hospital and staff visiting their current placement. Managers and staff told us the community support teams support with discharge of their patients.

In the last 6 months, no delayed discharges were reported from Wortham ward or the bungalows.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. In addition to the weekly community meetings Wortham ward had monthly patient council meetings.

The provider had undertaken equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage.

Patients told us the ward had held a Caribbean week, and they had eaten Caribbean food. Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights. Staff compliance with this training was 98.9%.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Staff supported patients to make decisions about their care and treatment and their future. Staff created personalised care plans to account for the patient’s needs, wishes and feelings. We observed how staff in the bungalows worked creatively with individuals to reduce risk and also to support their move to more independent living. In Wortham ward however we saw that some of the patients had been on this ward for a long time waiting for specialist placements.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs. The hospital had a full complement of multidisciplinary staff, and we observed how patients were supported and cared for through a multidisciplinary approach.