Battersea Bridge House

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Key Question Score: 17 (71%)

Key Question Rating: Good

This means we looked for evidence that patients' care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This means patients' outcomes were good, and patient feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service maximised the effectiveness of people’s care and treatment by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Staff assessed the physical and mental health of all patients on admission. They developed individual care plans which were reviewed regularly through multidisciplinary discussion. Some care plans around physical health and high-risk medicines needed more detail and guidance for staff.

We reviewed 8 care records and found that all patients received a physical and mental health assessment soon after admission.

For some patients, an interpreter was required, and this was arranged in line with the provider’s policy. If a member of staff was able to translate, they would do so in general communication.

Patients, carers and others involved in their care could attend ward rounds, where they were able to discuss care plans and contribute to them.

Staff developed care plans that met the patients’ needs identified during assessment. Most care plans were personalised and holistic, with input from the multidisciplinary team and specialists when needed. A patient we spoke with told us they had a copy of their plan and knew what was on there. Staff reviewed and updated care plans when necessary.

We spoke to 2 carers, and they told us that staff understood their relatives’ individual needs.

Staff we spoke to were able to describe the process of assessing individuals’ needs and had a good understanding of these.

Staff provided a range of treatment and care for patients based on national guidance. Staff participated in clinical audit, bench marking and quality improvement initiatives.

Staff provided a range of care and treatment interventions suitable for the patient group.The interventions were those recommended by, and were delivered in line with, guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). These included medication and psychological therapies, as well as supporting daily living skills.

Staff ensured that patients had good access to physical healthcare, including access to specialists when needed. We saw examples of patients being referred to other services.

Ward teams included or had access to a range of specialists to meet the needs of patients. This included nurses, healthcare assistants, doctors, psychologists, occupational therapists, activity coordinators and physiotherapists.

Staff were experienced and qualified and had the right skills and knowledge to meet the needs of the patient group. Managers provided new staff with appropriate induction.

Staff from different disciplines worked together to benefit patients.

Ward teams had effective working relationships with other relevant teams inside and outside the organisation. Staff held regular multidisciplinary meetings, safety huddles and team meetings to discuss patients and their care.

Staff had regular ward rounds where patients could attend.

Patients had access to staff who could support them with meeting the patients social care needs and support with contacting external agencies. Wards held patient discharge meetings to involve patients and families in discharge plans. Patient records showed that discharge planning was effective and supportive.

Staff told us that they had supported patients to consider healthy activities and choices by supporting them to take part in programmes or giving advice. Occupancy was low at the time of the inspection and staff told us that a pack of activities was currently in the process.

Staff used recognised rating scales to assess and record severity and outcomes. The trust had a quality priority to better define and demonstrate outcomes. Each team had at least one patient reported outcome measure. The trust had a strategy in place to support services within the trust where outcome measurement was not well-developed. Staff had access to technology to support patients effectively.

Staff told patients about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering care and treatment.

The provider had a policy on consent to treatment. Staff received and kept up to date with mandatory training on Mental Health Act Awareness, Mental Capacity Act and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Nursing and medical staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act, and we saw examples of clear and thorough recording of assessments and capacity. Mon-qualified staff were less able to describe this clearly and would benefit from more in-depth training.

Staff reviewed the section expiry dates for patients detained under the Mental Health Act (MHA) in daily meetings.

Staff documented patients’ consent to involve other people in their care, or whether they wished to decline this.

Staff we spoke with could give examples of assessing capacity on a decision-specific basis, for example around friendships and relationships. They documented patients’ capacity to consent to treatment and information sharing.

Staff provided explanations to patients of their rights under the MHA and of their treatments.