Battersea Bridge House

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

Key Question Score: 21 (75%)

Key Question Rating: Good

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At our last inspected we rated this key question as good. At this inspection the rating has stayed the same.

Staff provided information to patients and families in several ways and had initiatives to listen to and involve people in improving services.

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.

Each patient had their own bedroom, which they could personalise. All bedrooms were en-suite with a toilet and hand-basin.

Patients had a secure place to store personal possessions. There were lockers in patients’ bedrooms. Staff and patients had access to the full range of rooms and equipment to support treatment and care, for example, clinic rooms, lounges and space for activities. However, the ward areas were small.

The service had quiet areas and a room where patients could meet with visitors in private. Patients could make phone calls in private areas such as their bedroom. They had access to the ward phone or used their own mobile phones.

The service had an outside space that patients could access. The garden space was pleasant but would benefit from more upkeep.

There was a tea and coffee station for patients. Patients asked staff for cups. The service should consider whether this was necessary. There was a lack of food available in the kitchen area, there was once box of cereal on the shelf, no other snacks like fruit. However, staff told us this was due to low patient numbers and current patient preference. More food and snacks would be available if there were more patients on the ward.

Staff took account of patients’ preferences. Patients on Hardy Ward had access to a kitchen and were encouraged to prepare their own meals. Patients had cupboard space to store food and food stored in fridges. Staff were reminded to check dates regularly and label items.

The provider used patient experiences, feedback from staff and stakeholders, as well as national guidance to aim to deliver co-ordinated services that considered the needs of the individual patients on the wards. The provider worked to understand the diverse health and care needs of the local community and service user group.

Staff worked with external organisations which allowed patients to engage with activities in the community. Where appropriate, staff supported patients with activities outside the service, such as work, education and family relationships.

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with their families and carers. Staff communicated with external services when someone was being discharged.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights and how to complain. This could be provided in different languages if needed.

Information was available for staff and patients on noticeboards on each ward. The service also had leaflets for patients.

Staff supported, informed and involved families or carers. Families or carers were invited to ward rounds, where appropriate.

The service made notifications to external bodies as needed.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records.

The service had a notice about and was aware of the Accessible Information Standard.

Carers, families’ external organisations were kept updated about patient’s progress, where appropriate and with consent. Staff used technology to support communication and involvement with families and external providers.

The service actively collected feedback from patients. When a patient was discharged, they were asked to fill in a form where they could rate the service and give comments about their care and treatment.

Patients told us they knew how they could make a complaint. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the results. In the examples we looked at, we saw complaints were reported, escalated and dealt with appropriately and information and outcomes were shared within agreed timescales with patients and/or families. The service clearly displayed information about how to raise a concern in patient areas.

The service received 3 complaints in the past 12 months.

Staff understood the policy on complaints and knew how to handle them.

The service used compliments to learn, celebrate success and improve the quality of care. Managers shared feedback from complaints with staff and learning was used to improve the service.

The service was accessible to patients who needed inpatient care, although at the time of inspection, there was low occupancy.

Staff ensured the needs of patients with mobility issues were met. For example, wheelchair users were placed in larger, accessible bedrooms. There was adequate medical cover day and night, a doctor could attend the ward quickly in an emergency and the hospitals were within a reasonable travelling distance to the local acute hospital.

Staff planned for patients’ discharge, including liaison with community teams and housing when appropriate. Staff told us discharges were often delayed for reasons other than clinical reasons, such as awaiting appropriate social care. Staff told us there was often long waits for supported accommodation or rehabilitation wards, meaning patients were awaiting transfer on the acute wards.

Staff received training in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights. Overall, 98.57% of staff had completed this training. Staff could describe how they displayed this in their work with patients and as part of a team.

Where appropriate, staff supported patients to consider longer term decisions about their care, treatment and discharge Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs. For example, ward staff liaised with substance misuse services when appropriate.