Archived: Markeaton House

The provider had good working relationships with other health care providers. People were given information about other services if they were unsuitable for the programme. Staff referred people to other services as required. Detailed letters were provided to people's GPs so they were aware of what treatment had been provided.

Robust recruitment and selection procedures were in place, and all required information was held on staff files. Staff told us they were supported by the provider to develop their skills and knowledge, and to maintain their accreditation with their professional authority. Staff were supported through regular clinical supervision.

People were asked about their experience of using the service at the end of their treatment. Systems were also in place to assess the performance of individual staff and teams to ensure the care and treatment provided met the standards set by the provider.

We spoke with one person and they told us they were satisfied with the service provided and they knew what treatment they would receive. People knew information obtained during their treatment was used to evaluate the service provided.

Staff told us they received regular supervision and training, and were supported to maintain their professional accreditation. We saw that staff wrote detailed records about people, and provided information to GPs at the beginning and end of treatment.

Staff knew what action to take if they thought a child or an adult was at risk. They were able to describe what action they would take in these circumstances, and had policies and procedures to refer to for guidance.

We saw that all the majority of the required recruitment checks were carried out for new staff, not all of the required information was recorded in the staff files.

We found that some monitoring of the quality of the service provided did take place. However a system was not in place to ensure relevant audits took place and were recorded on a regular basis.