You are here

Archived: The Apricot Centre Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 1 November 2017

  • Some areas of the centre were not clean or well maintained. Some areas were visibly dirty.
  • The provider did not complete risk assessments for children. Staff would rely on risk history information sent to them by the referrer.
  • The provider was not complying with all fire safety regulations. The fire exit was blocked and fire exit signs were not clearly visible. The provider did not have an evacuation plan.
  • The provider did not use care plans. Staff had not clearly documented within the care records to state what treatment and therapies children were engaging in.
  • The provider did not complete supervision documentation. This meant they were unable to monitor staff compliance with supervision.
  • The provider did not have systems in place for sharing lessons learned from incidents or complaints.
  • The provider did not undertake clinical audits. This meant they were not able to monitor the quality of the service.
  • The provider was not using key performance indicators for measuring the performance of the service.

However:

  • Staff received safeguarding training and knew how to make a safeguarding referral when appropriate. Staff were able to tell us what they would report as a safeguarding incident.
  • The provider had incident reporting procedures in place. The provider used an electronic reporting system which all staff had access to.
  • Families and carers told us that staff were kind, caring and understood the needs of individual children.
  • Families and carers were involved in children’s care and were able to attend sessions if appropriate. The provider offered family and carer support.
  • The provider had a flexible approach to appointments. Staff would see children in their own home or suitable alternative venues.
  • Staff morale was high. Staff felt there was good team working and they received support from staff and managers.
Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 1 November 2017

We rated safe as requires improvement because:

  • Some areas of the centre were not clean or well maintained.
  • The provider did not complete risk assessments for children. Staff relied on risk history information sent to them by the referrer.
  • The provider was not complying with all fire safety regulations. The fire exit was blocked and fire exit signs were not clearly visible and there was not an evacuation plan.
  • Staff did not receive feedback or lessons learned from incidents.

However:

  • Staff had received safeguarding training and new how to make a safeguarding referral when appropriate. Staff were able to tell us what they would report as a safeguarding incident.
  • The provider had good incident reporting procedures in place. The provider used an electronic reporting system which all staff had access to.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 1 November 2017

We rated effective as requires improvement because:

  • Paper records were not kept in order; it was difficult to identify the start date of treatment. We found that much of the paperwork was copies of information provided from local authorities, placements, parents, and carers.
  • The provider did not use care plans. It was not clearly documented within the care records to state what treatment children were engaging in.
  • The provider did not complete supervision documentation. This meant they were unable to monitor staff compliance with supervision.
  • The provider did not record team meeting minutes. Therefore, information was not shared with staff if they were unable to attend the meeting.

However:

  • The provider had a range of staff disciplines that were skilled and experienced staff with the necessary qualifications.
  • The provider had a comprehensive policy on the implementation of the Mental Capacity Act. This included Gillick competence and Fraser guidelines.

Caring

Good

Updated 1 November 2017

We rated caring requires improvement because:

  • Children were not involved in the planning of their care. The provider did not use care plans.

However:

  • Families and carers told us that staff were kind, caring and understood the needs of the children.
  • Families and carers were involved in children’s care. Families and carers were able to attend sessions if appropriate. The provider offered family and carers support.
  • Families and carers were able to provide feedback on the service including feedback forms at the end of therapy and an annual survey.

Responsive

Good

Updated 1 November 2017

We rated responsive as requires improvement because:

  • The provider did not have information available on treatments. There was no information available in different languages for children whose first language was not English.
  • Staff did not receive feedback or lessons learned from complaints.

However:

  • The provider took active steps to engage children who were reluctant to attend therapy. Staff worked slowly to develop therapeutic relationships and encouraged participation in sessions.
  • The provider had a flexible approach to appointments. Staff could see children in their own home or could find suitable alternative venues for treatment.
  • Staff responded quickly when contacted by families and carers. Families and carers told us if they make contact, staff would respond immediately or soon as they could.
  • The provider had disabled access. There was ramped access outside the building and doors were wide enough to accommodate wheelchairs.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 1 November 2017

We rated well led requires improvement because:

  • The provider did not have systems to monitor staff compliance with supervision or appraisal.
  • The provider did not have systems in place for sharing lessons learned from incidents or complaints.
  • The provider did not undertake clinical audits. This meant they were unable to monitor the performance of the service.
  • The provider was not using key performance indicators for measuring the performance of the service.

However:

  • Staff were aware of the provider’s visions and values. Staff worked to find creative solutions whilst providing clinical care in a non-clinical setting.
  • Staff morale at the service was high. Staff felt there was good team working and they received support from staff and managers.
Checks on specific services

Specialist community mental health services for children and young people

Requires improvement

Updated 1 November 2017