Beverley House

We found that improvements were needed to ensure the service was safe. We found the provider had policies and procedures in place to protect people from abuse or harm. However, the provider did not have a suicide prevention strategy and records did not show that the effects from patients taking medication had been monitored. Three patients told us they did not feel safe at the hospital.

Improvements were needed to ensure the service was effective. We found that restrictions were placed on all people who used the service.

We observed that most staff interacted well with patients and patients told us that staff were caring. However, patients' privacy and dignity was not always respected.

Improvements were needed to ensure the service was responsive.

Improvement was needed to ensure the service was well led. Systems were not in place to ensure that regular audits were completed to measure the quality of care.

We observed good interactions between staff and people who used the service throughout the day.

People told us that they were involved in their care plans and had agreed to their treatment. We found that people did not have regular access to an advocate to ensure their views were expressed.

We saw that activities were provided however, people told us that there could be more to do at weekends. This was being addressed so that activities would be available seven days a week.

People told us that they felt safe at the hospital.

Staff received the training they needed to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to safely meet the needs of people who used the service.

We saw that action was taken to improve the service as a result of listening to the views of people who used the service and staff.

Records were not always accurate which could impact on the safety and wellbeing of people who used the service.

People were given information to be able to give informed consent to treatment. The service had arrangements in place where all decisions were made in partnership and recorded. One person told us: “I am aware of my drugs and am happy to take them.”

People received care and treatment that met their needs. There was a large therapeutic team in place to support people. Treatment plans were in place and followed. Staff demonstrated that they understood the care that people required. Activities formed a large part of the therapeutic environment. One person told us: “I go out regularly, the activities are really good. There’s dancing today and nails and massage tomorrow.”

Staff recruitment practices ensured that people received care from staff of good character. Staff had skills and qualifications to occupy the roles they held. Prior to recruiting staff police checks had been undertaken.

The service had enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff told us they were not concerned about the number of staff on duty for each shift. We saw that people received the care and treatment they needed from staff skilled and qualified to do so.

The service undertook auditing but this did not always result in positive change. We noted that the monitoring activities did not always identify the areas which needed to be addressed. We did see some positive monitoring such as feedback sought regarding activities delivered within the social inclusion programme.

The care and treatment people received was consistent and followed research and guidance. Relatives told us they were happy with the level of care given. One relative told us 'I can only praise the place'.

Staffing levels ensured that peoples' needs were met most of the time. People told us that the staff usually had time for them, but sometimes they did not if a crisis occurred in the home. Staff were qualified, skilled and motivated to give a good level of care.

Medications were managed to a standard that met the regulations We saw that the service had identified people who could be helped to self administer. This promoted people's independence.

The service had good arrangements for handling complaints. The complaints procedure ensured that people and their relatives felt safe to make complaints and comments and to bring this to the attention of the service. The procedure was audited, which meant that the service could make improvements if the audit demonstrated a need for improvement