Ellern Mede Ridgeway

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

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

The service treated patients with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

During our site visit, we observed staff interacting with young people in a kind, respectful and responsive manner. In the meetings we attended, staff demonstrated they knew patients and their families well.

Six of 7 young people we spoke with told us they found staff kind, supportive and respectful. One young person said that some staff "went above and beyond”. Others said staff listened to how they felt, supported and reassured them. Most carers also described staff as kind, welcoming and patient.

Most young people told us staff supported them to understand their own risks better and felt involved in their care and treatment. Care planning was highly personalised and there was clear evidence of young people’s voice in the care records we reviewed. Carers said staff met their relatives’ individual needs well, such as personal, cultural, social and religious needs. For example, during a ward round that we attended staff discussed and agreed plans for Eid with a young person and their family.

We sought feedback from partner agencies who regularly worked with the service. Their feedback about the staff was very positive. One stakeholder told us how staff personally reassured them during the referral process, and treated the young person they had referred sensitively and carefully. Another stakeholder described staff as very kind and considerate both to young people and their families. Another said that staff went above and beyond to lighten the mood and create a better environment for young people.

Staff supported young people to access other services when required, for example a dentist or optician.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients. Staff explained and recorded consent, confidentiality and information sharing clearly. If any young people identified as transgender or non-binary, they could record these details on a dedicated form, which staff only shared with others in line with their consent. However, because most patient bedrooms were shared, there was an impact on privacy. One carer shared their reservations about this arrangement.

The service treated people as individuals and was exceptional in how they made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The service took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff considered young people’s communication needs and preferences and documented those in the care plans. There was strong consideration of autism and learning disabilities throughout the pathway. For example, staff communicated with one young person using Makaton. Staff we spoke with said they worked together creatively to personalise care where standard approaches did not work. This included customised meal plans, education, supporting sensory sensitivities, choice of activities for different needs and interests, and identifying least restrictive practices.

Young people had a choice of food to meet their dietary requirements and to account for allergies and intolerances. Staff supported diets such as vegan, vegetarian, halal, kosher or gluten-free on an individual basis. Kitchen staff joined the community meetings monthly.

Staff ensured that young people had access to spiritual support. There was a multifaith room and some young people prayed in their own rooms. Young people could also be supported to access a local church.

Feedback from young people and carers who we spoke with demonstrated that individual needs were met well. Young people told us that staff knew what kinds of things they liked, talked with them and asked how they were. One young person said that staff “made you feel like a person”. Another said: “I am supported to feel like me”.

The service promoted patients’ independence, so they knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Most young people and carers told us they were satisfied with their level of involvement in care and access to the care plan. They said they received information and updates about the treatment progress. All carers thought that the service supported young people to make decisions for themselves, including about medicines. Carers said they knew how to contact staff, including managers and doctors, when needed.

Most young people told us they knew about independent advocacy and who the advocate was. The independent advocate attended the service weekly and met with patients and staff. The advocate reported being confident that staff actioned any issues they raised.

Most carers said staff had explained consent, confidentiality and how they shared their relative’s information clearly. Staff obtained and documented consent from young people and respected their decisions in this.

Staff supported young people to complete their own PILRIMP (patient inclusion in least restrictive intervention management plan), safety plans and care plans. The plans we viewed were written in the first person and included young person’s instructions on what staff should and should not do in certain circumstances.

The provider had a patient inclusion lead and expert by experience who were accessible to staff and young people. Reducing restrictive practices was a major focus of their work.

The care and treatment records we reviewed demonstrated that when patients were detained under the Mental Health Act, staff read and explained their rights and repeated this regularly.

However, during our visit, there was no activity timetable displayed on the wards. Some young people reported having to rely on staff to find out when activities and meetings started.

The service listened to and understood patients’ needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to patients’ needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff had a good understanding of risks specific to their patient group and of each patient’s individual risks. The risks, and any changes to them, were discussed daily. Staff reviewed observation levels daily.

Young people and carers we spoke with thought that staff understood and met individual needs well. Some young people told us how staff sat with them and provided emotional support, reassurance or distraction when they or someone else became distressed.

Staff were committed to using restraint only as the last resort. A dedicated restrictive practice trainer supported staff and patients with de-escalation and identifying the least restrictive interventions to use. Most young people who had been restrained said they understood the reason for this and that staff had done so safely and considerately.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff we spoke with were positive and proud about working for their team and the provider. Staff felt that their work had a positive impact on young people and expressed satisfaction in their roles. Staff confirmed that they received regular supervision and appraisal. Staff were able to work towards their competencies and said there were opportunities for development and progression. New starters described feeling supported through their induction.

Support was provided to staff following incidents from managers and peers, as well as pastoral and psychology support. Staff could access additional resources through the employer wellbeing app.

The provider recognised staff success within the service, for example through staff monthly awards and joint celebrations with patients.

Most staff we spoke with reported feeling respected, supported and valued. However, due to the recent reduction in appropriate referrals and resulting low occupancy within the hospital, some staff reported low morale. They shared that this had caused anxiety and wanted better communication and support from the managers.