Dunnock View

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

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated as good. This meant people's needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and decided, in partnership with them, how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs.

Staff regularly met with patients to understand their views on care and treatment. These discussions took place in one-to-one meetings with nurses and in ward rounds. Staff monitored patients’ conditions and discussed any changes at daily handover meetings.

This service admitted patients mainly from Essex for relatively short periods – the average length of stay was 6 weeks. A smaller number of patients were admitted from other areas including Cambridge and Peterborough, London and Wales. The purpose of the service was to stabilise patients experiencing an acute episode of mental illness.

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with their families and friends.

Family members, bed managers and care co-ordinators were all invited to multidisciplinary team meetings. The service facilitated attendance by video link if people were unable to attend the hospital. One discharge co-ordinator worked from the hospital one day a week to enable him to attend meetings and speak with managers and clinical staff about the progress of patients from his Trust. He told us he felt welcomed and supported to do this and all staff were very helpful and accommodating.

The service provided appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff had access to the equipment and information technology needed to do their work.

Team managers had access to information to support them with their management role. This included information on the performance of the service, staffing and patient care. This information was presented and discussed in clinical governance meetings.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed. The service submitted notifications to the Care Quality Commission in accordance with the requirements of their registration. The service submitted safeguarding referrals to the local authority.

Staff made sure patients could access information on treatment and local services. Staff explained that information was provided for patients if it was needed.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. The service involved them in decisions about their care and told what’s changed as a result.

Patients, relatives and carers knew how to complain or raise concerns. Patients said if they had any complaints, they would speak with nursing staff or the ward manager in the first instance. Patients told us that information about how to make a complaint was available in their welcome packs, and a complaint book was available in the nurses’ office. We saw that information about how to make a complaint and how to raise concerns with the Care Quality Commission was available on noticeboards throughout the wards.

We saw from community meeting notes that staff and patients discussed complaints and concerns in the weekly community meeting and staff fed back at the beginning of these meetings updates and what had changed since the previous meeting. We saw ‘you said, we did’ boards on all the wards. Patients told us that there were suggestion boxes on the wards and staff told us these were frequently used by patients to make suggestions for improvements to the wards or regarding their care.

Staff knew how to acknowledge complaints and tried to swiftly resolve complaints informally with patients. Between January and May 2025, the hospital director received only one formal complaint. The theme of the complaint was clinical care for a patient on Brant ward. At the time of inspection, due to the complexity, this complaint was still under investigation but remained within the response timelines.

The independent mental health advocate told us that managers had been transparent and open about the complaint policies and procedures and patients had often told her they felt their issues had been resolved properly and they had been heard once a complaint had been made.

During April 2025, staff had received 3 compliments, including a letter of appreciation shared with a staff member directly from a patient referencing appreciation for all for the support she had received throughout her stay at Dunnock View.

The service made sure that everyone could access the care, support and treatment they need when they need it.

Staff ensured the needs of patients with mobility issues were met. All ward areas were at ground level and walking aids and a wheelchair were available if patients needed these.

There was adequate medical cover day and night. There were doctors who stayed on site and could attend the ward quickly in an emergency and the hospital was within a reasonable travelling distance to the local acute hospital.

Staff ensured patients had access to post-discharge care — for example S117 aftercare, community mental health services and crisis services.

Staff planned for patients' discharge including good liaison with care managers/discharge co-ordinators.

The service admitted patients from diverse religious and cultural backgrounds. Staff asked patients about their religious and cultural needs when they were admitted to the ward.

Staff shared that adjustments were made to accommodate patients with diverse needs. Information was also made available in various formats and languages upon request to ensure accessibility. For instance, at the time of the inspection, a patient who was a refugee had been admitted. An interpreter was arranged for this patient whose first language was not English. Furthermore, written therapeutic material was translated for him so he could access psychology and occupational therapy sessions.

Staff made sure patients could access information on treatment, local service, their rights and how to complain. Patients were asked if they had any unmet spiritual or cultural needs during their regular ward rounds and CPA reviews.

At the time of inspection, 100% of staff had completed training in diversity, equity and inclusion. The service had introduced The Oliver McGowan Mandatory Training on Learning Disability and Autism and compliance for this training at the time of inspection was 98.7% for permanent staff and 100% for bank staff.

The multidisciplinary team planned for each patient’s discharge and return to their local area. Staff ensured that appropriate arrangements were in place to sustain the patient’s mental health. This included liaising with health and social care professionals in the patient’s local area to ensure they had appropriate accommodation to be discharged to and that a package of care was provided by the local mental health services.