You are here

Archived: Big White Wall Head Office Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 8 August 2016

We rated The Big White Wall Head Office as good because:

  • There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs safely.

  • Staff had received and were up to date with appropriate mandatory training. Therapy staff completed a comprehensive induction to prepare them for their role.

  • Policies and procedures for managing risk were in place. Staff had a good understanding of these and followed them consistently to protect people.

  • Safeguarding arrangements were in place and staff were aware of the procedures to follow so that any safeguarding concerns were raised appropriately.

  • People’s needs were assessed and reviewed so that the service ensured people were receiving the treatment they needed. Risk assessments were reflected in the treatment plan. The service worked with other healthcare providers when people were discharged.

  • Treatment was planned and delivered in line with current evidence based guidance, standards and best practice.

  • Consent to treatment was sought prior to the start of each therapy session. Staff had undertaken training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and had completed other mandatory training.

  • People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. People told us the service was professional and live therapy had helped them.

  • People were at the centre of their care and treatment and were involved in making decisions about their treatment.

  • People could access live therapy in a timely manner. The service operated out of hours and at the weekend, this allowed people to have more flexibility in arranging their therapy sessions and was responsive to individual need.

  • People’s concerns and complaints were listened to, addressed in a timely manner and used to improve the service.

  • Staff enjoyed working at the service and were committed to providing good quality care and support to people.

  • The service had been nominated for and had won several awards. The Big White Wall was the winner in the 2015 Digital Entrepreneur Awards, technical innovation within the public sector and won the Women in IT awards for Innovator of the year 2016.

  • The Big White Wall team had several articles published in journals such as the British Journal of General Practice and Current Psychiatry reports.

However:

  • Systems to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service were not fully developed and embedded within the organisation. This meant there was a risk that areas that required improvement would not be identified.

  • Arrangements to share learning from incidents took place during supervision only. There was no system to share meeting minutes where incidents were discussed.

  • Supervision records contained brief information about ongoing treatment and risk.

  • Regular staff meetings with therapy staff did not take place.

  • Arrangements were not in place for the continued professional development (CPD) of therapy staff. Staff were only offered mandatory training.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 8 August 2016

We rated safe as good because:

  • There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs safely.

  • Staff had received and were up to date with appropriate mandatory training. Therapy staff completed a comprehensive induction to prepare them for their role.

  • Policies and procedures for managing risk were in place. Staff had a good understanding of these and followed them consistently to protect people.

  • Safeguarding arrangements were in place and staff were aware of the procedures to follow so that any safeguarding concerns were raised appropriately.

However:

  • Arrangements to share learning from incidents took place during supervision only. There was no system to share meeting minutes where incidents were discussed.

Effective

Good

Updated 8 August 2016

We rated effective as good because:

  • People’s needs were assessed and reviewed so that the service ensured people were receiving the treatment they needed. Risk assessments were reflected in the treatment plan. The service worked with other healthcare providers when people were discharged.

  • The recovery rate in live therapy from GP referrals was better than the national average.

  • Records were up to date, stored securely and safely.

  • Treatment was planned and delivered in line with current evidence based guidance, standards and best practice.

  • The service worked closely with commissioners, GPs and other healthcare professionals to provide an effective service.

  • Consent to treatment was sought prior to the start of each therapy session. Staff had undertaking training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and had completed mandatory training.

  • Staff had the right qualifications, skills, knowledge and experience to do their job. Regular online group supervision was provided.

However:

  • Supervision records contained brief information about ongoing treatment and risk.

  • Regular staff meetings with therapy staff did not take place.

  • Arrangements were not in place for the continued professional development (CPD) of therapy staff. Staff were only offered mandatory training.

Caring

Good

Updated 8 August 2016

We rated caring as good because:

  • People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. People told us the service was professional and live therapy had helped them.

  • People were at the centre of their care and treatment and were involved in making decisions about their treatment.

  • People could choose their therapist, the type of therapy they wanted and at a time that was convenient for them.

Responsive

Good

Updated 8 August 2016

We rated responsive as good because:

  • People could access live therapy in a timely manner. The service operated out of hours and at the weekend, this allowed people to have more flexibility in arranging their therapy sessions and was responsive to individual need.

  • Comprehensive information about the service was available to people on the provider’s website.

  • A complaint procedure was in place. People’s concerns and complaints were listened to, addressed in a timely manner and used to improve the service.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 8 August 2016

We rated responsive as requires improvement because:

  • Systems to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service were not fully developed and embedded within the organisation. This meant there was a risk that areas that required improvement would not be identified.

However:

  • Staff enjoyed working at the service and were committed to providing good quality care and support to people. They had a good understanding of the values of the organisation.

  • An improvement strategy and leadership plan was in place.

  • The service had been nominated for and had won several awards. The Big White Wall was the winner in the 2015 Digital Entrepreneur Awards, technical innovation within the public sector and won the Women in IT awards for Innovator of the year 2016.

  • The Big White Wall team had several articles published in journals such as the British Journal of General Practice and Current Psychiatry reports.

Checks on specific services

Community-based mental health services for adults of working age

Good

Updated 8 August 2016

We rated The Big White Wall Head Office as good because:

  • There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs safely.

  • Staff had received and were up to date with appropriate mandatory training. Therapy staff completed a comprehensive induction to prepare them for their role.

  • Policies and procedures for managing risk were in place. Staff had a good understanding of these and followed them consistently to protect people.

  • Safeguarding arrangements were in place and staff were aware of the procedures to follow so that any safeguarding concerns were raised appropriately.

  • People’s needs were assessed and reviewed so that the service ensured people were receiving the treatment they needed. Risk assessments were reflected in the treatment plan. The service worked with other healthcare providers when people were discharged.

  • Treatment was planned and delivered in line with current evidence based guidance, standards and best practice.

  • Consent to treatment was sought prior to the start of each therapy session. Staff had undertaken training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and had completed other mandatory training.

  • People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. People told us the service was professional and live therapy had helped them.

  • People were at the centre of their care and treatment and were involved in making decisions about their treatment.

  • People could access live therapy in a timely manner. The service operated out of hours and at the weekend, this allowed people to have more flexibility in arranging their therapy sessions and was responsive to individual need.

  • People’s concerns and complaints were listened to, addressed in a timely manner and used to improve the service.

  • Staff enjoyed working at the service and were committed to providing good quality care and support to people.

  • The service had been nominated for and had won several awards. The Big White Wall was the winner in the 2015 Digital Entrepreneur Awards, technical innovation within the public sector and won the Women in IT awards for Innovator of the year 2016.

  • The Big White Wall team had several articles published in journals such as the British Journal of General Practice and Current Psychiatry reports.

However:

  • Systems to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service were not fully developed and embedded within the organisation. This meant there was a risk that areas that required improvement would not be identified.

  • Arrangements to share learning from incidents took place during supervision only. There was no system to share meeting minutes where incidents were discussed.

  • Supervision records contained brief information about on-going treatment and risk.

  • Regular staff meetings with therapy staff did not take place.

  • Arrangements were not in place for the continued professional development (CPD) of therapy staff. Staff were only offered mandatory training.