The Langford Centre

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

At our last assessment we rated this key question as requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

We rated this key question good because:

• Patients reported that staff were caring and showed them respect.
• Staff gave patient information in formats they could understand.
• Staff worked with patients and families.

However:

• Patients told us staff did not always apologise for mistakes.
• Patients told us staff sometimes spoke in languages other than English.

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.

All the episodes of care we witnessed were appropriate and we saw that staff showed kindness and respect to patients. We received mixed feedback from patients most patients told us that staff were caring and respectful. However, two patients told us that some staff were not always caring. One patient said that some of the staff team were just there for money and one patient told us that staff had not treated them well when they had made a medication error.

Patients gave us a mix of replies about how involved in their care. Most felt they were not in control of their treatment even when staff asked them to input into their care. None of the patients we spoke to said that they had a copy of their care plan or had been involved in developing one.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The provider had ensured that the wards were accessible for all patients. The wards were on a single level and if upstairs there was lift access. The provider made sure that information was available to patients in a format they could understand. The provider could provide information in different languages and arrange for translators if needed.

Staff told us that they would explain treatments and provide information to patients about their treatment. Of the 9 patients we spoke to 6 told us they were given information about their treatment while 3 told us they had not.

Patients were given a choice of meals and there was food available that would meet both dietary and cultural needs. One patient told us their cultural needs had not been met correctly, there was no relevant religious text available in the multi faith room and there was not enough food available after they had finished fasting.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff worked with patients and their families to develop treatment plans that met the patients’ needs and helped them to regain their independence. Staff completed several assessments with patients to assess their needs. These included assessments of their mobility, self-care skills, capacity to make financial decisions and individual interests. The information was then used to develop an individual plan that included the patient’s likes and dislikes.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff completed a risk assessment of all patients on or shortly after they were admitted to the hospital. The risk assessment covered both physical and mental health risks. There was a daily meeting where staff were informed about any risks or incidents. There were monthly patient safety meetings where staff discussed risk and any actions that had been agreed to address them.

Staff worked with patients to identify plans that would help reduce the need for medication or physical interventions to deescalate patients. For example, staff told us that they could get some patients to engage in painting and others used ice packs to relax. All information was included in patient care plans so that all staff could see and use this information.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

The staff that we spoke to told us that they felt they were listened to and senior staff wanted to hear their opinions and would act upon them. There were regular team meetings which gave staff information about the service and what was expected of them and gave them the opportunity to raise concerns. Ward managers would help on the unit if needed.