HMP Onley

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

We looked at 1 quality statement in this key question. The provider had made sufficient progress to address the regulatory breach for 1 of the quality statements. We found that staff triaged patients’ mental health needs, although there was limited support available to patients following triage. Patient discharges were not planned or recorded well.

Find out what we look at when we assess this area in our information about our new Single assessment framework.

The judgement for Person-centred Care is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Care provision, Integration and continuity is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Providing Information is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Listening to and involving people is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

Staff promptly triaged patients but there was limited therapeutic intervention available.

At the last assessment we found that the triage arrangements and access to appointments for patients was not managed well. During this assessment we found there had been an improvement. Mental health nurses triaged patients each day Monday to Friday, with an operational service at weekends to meet urgent needs. A meeting was held each weekday morning to discuss patient assessments and agree whether interventions were required. Mental health nurses documented clear and comprehensive triage records and we saw patients were discussed at daily meetings. However, following triage there was little non-medical therapeutic intervention available. Few patients who were identified as having mental health needs and/or as requiring therapy received this promptly. Patients were waiting for up to 25 weeks for support at the time of inspection, the length of wait and number of patients waiting continued to increase. We also identified some patients who were either not assessed as requiring therapeutic support when they should have been or removed from the waiting list when they should not have been.

Planning for patient discharge was not effective. At the last assessment, staff did not plan patients discharge well. During this inspection we found minimal improvement. Staff did not engage with community services until shortly prior to each patients' discharge and patient records lacked relevant information. This meant that community services had a limited amount of time to plan for continuity of care for patients upon release.

The judgement for Equity in experiences and outcomes is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Planning for the future is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.