Sturdee Community Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

This means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Effective.

The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Staff assessed the physical and mental health of all patients on admission. They developed individual care plans which were reviewed regularly through multidisciplinary discussion and updated as needed.

Staff provided a range of treatment and care for patients based on national guidance and best practice. The ward team included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of patients on the ward. Staff from different disciplines worked together as a team to benefit patients.

The providers had an admission, referral and discharge policy which set out all the information required for initial and ongoing assessments. This policy set out the actions staff must undertake to meet the service regulations and standards.

Assessments had captured all relevant information and evidenced involvement from the patient. Care plans were personalised and recovery-orientated, information was mostly detailed. Aims and objectives were documented and had been discussed and agreed with the patient.

Information about how recovery would be achieved was included in care records, such as regular psychology sessions. Positive behaviour plans were in place and reviewed appropriately. Interventions to support each person if their mental health deteriorated were recorded.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health Act Code of Practice and discharged these well

Staff told us they received the training and support required to provide evidence-based care. The multidisciplinary team developed treatment plans for each patient such as positive behaviour support plans to provide long term support. Care, treatment and support was delivered between psychiatry, psychology, nursing, and occupational therapy so that all aspects of mental, physical, and emotional wellbeing are addressed. The psychology team reviewed and evaluated positive behaviour support plans.

Staff gave us examples of how therapeutic plans had reduced restrictive interventions such as enhanced observations and improved the patient’s quality of life.

Staff ensured that patients had good access to physical healthcare, including access to specialists when needed. Staff assessed and met patients’ needs for food and drink and for specialist nutrition and hydration. Appropriate referrals were made to dieticians when required.

Staff had training and professional qualifications relevant to patient’s needs. Compliance with mandatory training was above 95%. Staff were able to describe relevant policies and procedures and evidence-based care and treatment being delivered. Induction training was provided to all new staff and their performance was assessed in supervision and appraisal meetings. Staff supervision rated for the 3-month period May to July 2025 were above 84%.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff were mostly supportive of each other and communication was good. Teams and departments were patient focused. Some concerns were raised regarding poor working relationships which we have described in more detail in the well led section of this report.

Staff held regular and effective weekly multidisciplinary meetings and daily safety meetings. They shared information about patients at effective handover meetings within the team.

The teams had effective working relationships, including good handovers, with other relevant teams within the organisation. A visiting GP told us staff made appropriate referrals and followed their advice and guidance.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Patients and a relative told us their family member had access to healthcare and could see a GP when they needed to. Staff contacted emergency services when required to.

The provider employed 2 physical health nurses. Staff promoted and supported patients with healthy eating, smoking cessation and exercise. Staff encouraged patients to keep hydrated. Patients were also encouraged to access health screening and given information about promoting their health.

Health promotion sessions were available weekly and included topics such as women’s health checks, sleep hygiene and oral health. Nicotine replacements were available to support smoking cessation.

Physical health checks were carried out such as vital sign observations and weight monitoring.

Each patient had a physical health assessment and care plan to support their individual needs.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Patients had their care treatment and support reviewed. Ward round meetings took place weekly (with every patient attending at least once a month). Members of the multidisciplinary team attended, such as doctors, nurses and other therapy staff. In most cases, patients and their relatives were invited to attend this review. The patient’s wellbeing was discussed along with known risks and how these were managed. The whole team were involved with decision making, including positive risk taking and measures in place to reduce risks.

The provider employed a social worker, occupational therapist and a psychology team. The psychology team was well resourced with 2 psychologists, 3 assistant psychologists and further assistant psychologist planned to join this team.

Patients could access psychology sessions at least once a week. Trauma focused therapies were provided such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT) was available depending on individual needs. The psychology team told us and gave examples of the multidisciplinary team offering person centered approaches and practical ideas to increase patients’ quality of life, autonomy and independence.

The provider had a system in place known as ‘patient of the day’ to prompt a thorough review of care treatment and support provided.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They understood the importance of ensuring patients needed to understand what they were consenting too around their care and treatment.

Within care plans and risk assessments it was evident that staff had taken the patient’s views and wishes into account, where possible, when planning their care. For example, patients were provided with a copy of their care plan. The patients capacity to consent to care as planned was documented and this was reviewed along with the patients views and comments. Where required, the staff team had made decisions in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

Staff used the least restrictions where possible when anticipating, de-escalating and managing distressed behaviour or emotional reaction. Care plans focused on the use restraint as a last resort and only after attempts at verbal de-escalation had failed.

Patient we spoke with said they were informed of their rights at least every 6 months.

Not all prescribed medicines were included in the patient’s authorisation of consent to receive prescribed medicine. We have described this concern within the ‘safe’ key question of this report.