Battersea Bridge House

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Key Question Score: 20 (71%)

Key Question Rating: - Good

This means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last inspection we rated this key question as requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has changed to good. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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.

Staff understood the provider's vision and values and how they were applied in the work of their team.

Staff we spoke with said people could express views openly in meetings without judgement and views from different professions were heard and taken into account. Staff described their colleagues and teams positively and said they were supportive.

Leaders had the skills common knowledge and experience to perform their roles. They had a good understanding of the services they managed. They could explain clearly how the teams were working to provide quality care.

Leaders were visible in the service, approachable for patients and staff. Staff told us they were aware of who the leaders were, that they visited regularly and were approachable.

Leadership development opportunities had been and were available to staff.

There was a freedom to speak up guardian in place. Staff knew who this person was and we saw posters with information and contact details, including a photograph throughout the service.

The trust valued diversity in the workforce and had several initiatives to promote an inclusive and fair culture for their staff. Staff were able to access several staff networks. These included, a carers network, disabilities network, LGBTQ+ network, race equality and cultural heritage (REACH) network, multifaith network and a women’s network. Staff were able to apply to work flexibly, such as, flexible working agreements. Managers put reasonable adjustments in place for staff members to help them carry out their role.

We saw there were appropriate governance and management systems in place. Most of these were effective to maintain and deliver safe care. There were a small number of areas, identified during our inspection, that the service had not picked up on. For example, quality of incident reporting forms and physical health care plans.

However, we did see examples of effective audits that led to change and improvement. For example, the identification of observations being carried out in a predictable pattern for a number of hours on one day. This was identified through audit and addressed and records then showed observations were being carried out at unpredictable times, in line with guidance.

Staff had access to the equipment and information technology needed to do their work. The information technology infrastructure worked well and supported delivery of care. The service had developed its own system for patient records. Staff described this positively and we saw it was easy to navigate, well-structured and could be adapted to the needs of the service and staff. We identified that an additional area to clearly record safeguarding concerns and actions would be helpful. Currently this was stored separately.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records.

The service was very proactive in going paper free and most systems and records were electronic.

Senior managers engaged with external stakeholders, such as commissioners and Healthwatch. The trust shared information and learning with partners in order to collaborate on improvement.

Staff were given the time and support to consider opportunities for improvements and innovation and this led to changes. For example, there had been improvements in security at the service. The security lead took an overview of security and had created a documented process and procedure leading to a greater consistency of security checks. Pictures were used to help staff identify contraband consistently. Wards participated in accreditation schemes relevant to the service and learned from them. The service was a member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ Quality Network for Forensic Mental Health Services and received regular reviews.