• Hospice service

Sue Ryder - Leckhampton Court

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Church Road, Leckhampton, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL53 0QJ (01242) 230199

Provided and run by:
Sue Ryder

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 12 September 2022

Sue Ryder Leckhampton Court Hospice is operated by the National Sue Ryder charity. It offers community and inpatient hospice care support for people over the age of 18 who have life limiting conditions such as cancer, heart failure, lung disease and degenerative neurological illnesses, and serves communities within Gloucestershire.

There is a 16-bed inpatient unit, hospice at home team, virtual day service, community and inpatient therapy service, family support service, spiritual support, befriending and bereavement support. These are provided by a consultant led multidisciplinary team and a team of volunteers. Due to infection prevention and control of the risk of COVID-19,13 of the 16 available beds were being used.

The hospice at home team helps people to stay at home if that is their preferred place of death. The services provided by the hospice worked in conjunction with people's own GP, community district nurses, and other health and social care professionals.

The location is registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide the following regulated activity:

  • Treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

The service had a registered manager, who has been registered since March 2022.

Leckhampton Court Hospice was inspected in 2016 and was rated as good.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 12 September 2022

Our rating of this service stayed the same. We rated it as good because:

  • The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. The service had systems and processes to prescribe and administer medicines safely. There was a genuine open culture in which all safety concerns raised by staff and patients were highly valued as being integral to learning and improvement.
  • Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Key services were available seven days a week.
  • Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity. Staff recognised and respected the individual as a whole and went to great lengths to make final wishes a reality. People who used the service were active partners in their care. Staff were fully committed to working in partnership to make this a reality for each person. Staff communicated effectively to understand the things important to each individual and worked hard to provide this. Staff helped patients and families to understand their conditions. There was a strong person-centred culture and staff provided emotional support to patients, families and carers in both formal and informal ways. Patients felt they were truly cared for and supported by hospice staff.
  • The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it.
  • Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff were proud to work at the service, there was strong collaborative team working and staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff at all levels were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

  • Storage of emergency medicines and medical gases were not always stored in line with guidance and patient weights were not always recorded on medicine charts.