You are here

Sue Ryder - Leckhampton Court Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 13 December 2011
Date of Publication: 23 December 2011
Inspection Report published 23 December 2011 PDF

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

How this check was done

Our judgement

Overall, we found Sue Ryder Leckhampton Court Hospice was compliant with this essential standard.

People who come to Leckhampton Court for care, treatment or support are assessed so that the care meets their needs. The care, treatment and support are safe and effective and developed with people to respect their rights and choices.

User experience

We talked with people about the care they received at the hospice. People said "the care here is wonderful" and "the doctors are very dedicated and so genuinely care." We were told that the nursing was "special" and the health care assistants "are caring and nothing is too much trouble." People told us that staff "know when I'm not myself and are quick to see what they can do."

We observed care delivered with kindness, warmth, patience and encouragement. We observed care and support at the day care hospice. We saw one patient having a reflexology treatment and others taking part in making arts and crafts. There was laughing and happiness among the patients and the staff. We were told "the place has a great atmosphere if you think why we are all here." One person said "I have been given back the will to live as long as possible."

Other evidence

We talked with staff about how they assessed the needs of people who came to Leckhampton Court. We were told that people who are admitted from hospital were handed over by hospital staff and details passed in a telephone conversation. These people were then given an initial assessment at the hospice and initial observations made before a full admission assessment was made by the doctor. People who were referred to the hospice by their GP or from other approved routes were given a pre-admission assessment so that staff could determine if they could meet their needs and if the hospice was the right place for them to be.

Most people coming into the hospice had their pain management attended to as one of the first priorities. The doctors and nursing staff endeavoured to manage pain in a number of different ways and also used occupational therapists and physiotherapists in the process to bring as much relief as possible. All the patients that we asked about pain management said that the hospice had controlled their pain well. We were told that the service "made real progress for me" and "certainly helped" in this respect. One person said "they really specialise in pain control here and for me that's so valuable."

We talked with the lead consultant for palliative care about the service the hospice offered in the day care unit. This service was for people who lived otherwise at home and who may have been discharged from the ward following pain and symptom control. The service offered a transition service which involved a 12-week programme of support to help the person to live at home safely and with more independence and confidence. People were given physical but also psychological and social support. People could also have blood transfusions and ascitic taps at the day centre or ward. The hospice also offered a service to a patient's family which included bereavement support.

We looked at four sets of patient notes for people staying on the ward. The admission records were clear and contained relevant essential information on the person's physical and mental health. The records also described what was important to the patient in terms of treatment at the hospice. The records held daily written notes made by different members of the staffing team who had supported the patient during the day. The records were detailed, clear and legible.

We did see that one patient had at one stage suffered from a temporary clinical condition which could recur. The service had not clearly acknowledged this, but tests that the hospice was carrying out would have alerted medical staff to any recurrence of the condition. We also found that the patient records did not have a summary of the patient's life or history or those things that were particularly important to the patient.

We asked the staff about having time to spend with patients. We were told by the lead consultant that there was "never a day when I don't see patients" and nursing staff said "it's the biggest part of my day". We were told that patients were at the "heart of this place" and we observed that staff were caring for and supporting patients when we toured the hospice. Patients also said, however, that staff made sure that they had as much peace and quiet as they wanted and also time with their families and friends. Staff told us that where visitors were concerned, the patients' views or wishes came first. Staff would limit or reduce visitors or the time they were there if the patient requested this.