St. Peter's Community Hospital Ward

St Peter’s Community Hospital ward has 26 beds split between stroke rehabilitation (10 bedded) and rehabilitation and end of life care for adults (14 bedded). It also offers day case admission for patients.

We chose to inspect St Peter’s Community Hospital Ward as part of the first pilot phase of the new inspection process we are introducing for community health services. St Peter’s Community Hospital Ward was last inspected in February 2013 when we found it to be compliant in the five standards we reviewed.

In general, we found that St Peter’s Community Hospital ward provided safe care. People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Systems for identifying, investigating and learning from patient safety incidents were in place.

Inpatient services were effective and focussed on the needs of patients. We saw examples of effective collaborative working practices and sufficient staff available to meet the needs of people accommodated within this facility.

The majority of people said that they had positive experiences of care. We saw good examples of care being provided with compassion and of effective interactions between staff and patients. We found staff to be hard working, caring and committed. We noted many staff spoke with passion about their work and were proud of what they did.

St Peter’s Community Hospital ward responded to people’s needs. We found the organisation actively sought the views of patients and families. People from all communities could access services and effective multidisciplinary team working, including inpatient and community teams, ensured people were provided with care that met their needs, at the right time and without delay.

The ward was well-led. Organisational, governance and risk management structures were in place. The senior management team were visible and the culture was seen as open and transparent. Staff were aware of the vision and way forward for the organisation and said that they generally felt well supported and that they could raise any concerns. Many staff told us that it was a good place to work.

Although mechanisms were in place for staff to receive individual clinical supervision, there were inconsistencies in practice. Monitoring systems were not in place that would ensure staff received the four individual supervision sessions per year as per policy, or that ensured sufficient time for reflection between sessions.