Battersea Bridge 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

Key Question Score: 15 (75%)

Key Question Rating: Good

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This means staff provided a service which enabled a positive and caring environment, whilst patients were treated with compassion kindness, dignity and respected. Patients feedback confirmed this.

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.

Occupancy was low at the time of our inspection. However, we observed staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients and this showed that they were discrete, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice.

Patient records showed that staff directed patients to other services where appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services.

Feedback from patients was that staff treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them.

Staff discussed patients, identifying their individual needs including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients. Any white boards in the ward office were covered and we're not visible to patients or visitors. All information about care was kept on computers with appropriate restrictions of access.

The service could make certain adjustments for disabled patients. The service could identify an adapt care for specific communication needs.

Staff provided information to patients via notice boards or leaflets about treatments, local services, patients’ rights, and how to complain. On the notice board there was information about how to obtain documents in other languages.

The service had access to interpreter services. They used localised procedures, if possible, when communicating day-to-day with patients on the ward. For example, if the staff member was able to communicate in a different language with the patient.

Patients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and account for allergies and intolerance's. Catering staff prepared and provided food on site. This was also available to staff.

At the time of inspection, there was no specific multi faith room available for patients or staff at the service. The service should consider if they can provide this space at the service to continue their support of patients who may benefit from this.

Staff involved most patients in discussions about their care and treatment. Patients told us that staff explained their rights under the Mental Health Act. Patients were aware of their ward rounds and met with doctors to discuss their treatment regularly.

Where appropriate, carers attended ward rounds. Patients were encouraged to provide feedback about the ward. Patients were able to provide feedback in community meetings, ward rounds and patient surveys. A recent patient survey in October 2024 saw a 74% return rate and responses received were generally positive.

Most patients told us staff gave them emotional support and advice when they needed it. Patients we spoke with told us they felt able to raise any concerns they had with the ward staff or ward manager. Patients also had access to community meetings where they could raise their concerns about issues on the wards. However, community meeting minutes often did not have action plans or provide updates following a patient raising a concern.

The trust had policies and procedures in place for searching patients and their bedrooms. All patients were searched on their return from leave.

Staff told us they felt respected, supported and valued. Feeling positive proud of working for the provider and within their team. Stop described their colleagues as very supportive and positive.

There was a staff room on site. However, this was a room on Hardy Ward and there was a viewing panel in the door that allowed patients visible access to the room. This did not create a space separate from the wards where staff could easily take a break without patients requesting their attention. The service should consider whether a door without a window would be more appropriate.

The provider recognised staff success within the service. Staff recently described being commended by senior staff for the positive work they did.

One member of staff noted that staff well-being was being considered more carefully recently.