Potters Bar Clinic

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 did not assess this key question. At this assessment the rating is good.

Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness. Patients told us that most staff treated them with kindness and respect. Families and carers told us staff were caring.

Staff respected patients’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of patients’ and supported patients to understand and manage their care and treatment. Patients had access to regular community meetings and were able to give feedback about their care. There were therapeutic activities available, however some patients told us there could be more activities available.

Staff felt supported by managers. Staff told us that leaders were approachable and they were able to raise concerns. 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.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff treated patients with dignity and respect. We observed staff interacting with patients in communal areas and found staff were supporting and engaging with patients. Patients told us that most staff treated them with kindness and respect. One patient told us staff were “lovely” and another patient told us staff were “good hearted people.”

Family and carers of patients told us that staff were helpful and kind. They felt communication was good and told us they were regularly invited to ward rounds. Family and carers told us they appreciated being kept informed about their loved one’s care. One family member told us, “being listened to means a lot” and that reception staff were extremely welcoming and supportive.

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.

Staff treated patients as individuals and understood their different cultural backgrounds. Events such as cultural days were organised to celebrate different cultures of staff and patients. There were multifaith boxes, which included different religious texts to suit different religious needs.

Staff ensured there were regular community meetings on both Ruby and Crystal ward. We reviewed community meeting minutes and found there were discussions on topics such as environment, communication and food. This meant patients were able to give feedback to staff about their preferences. Actions were identified from meetings and progress on actions was reviewed.

Family and carers told us their loved ones had been given easy read leaflets to help them understand their treatment.

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.

Patients told us they had access to visits and there was a quiet space for them to meet their friends and family. Patients had access to a phone and were able to contact their friends and family when they wanted to. Staff supported patients to maintain contact with their families. Families were invited to ward rounds where consent had been given. This meant that families were involved in care. Family members we spoke with told us this was very important to them.

Staff ensured patients had access to section 17 leave. We reviewed section 17 leave paperwork and found risk assessments were completed prior to a patient going on leave.

Patients had a choice of therapeutic activities on the wards. This included activities such as ward cooking, pet therapy and arts and crafts. However, some patients felt there could be more activities to choose from.

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 ensured that patients’ needs were responded to. We reviewed observation records and found that observations were completed in line with policy. In observation records that we reviewed, we found staff on observation were regularly changed to allow them to have a break. However, in 1 observation record we reviewed, it was unclear if a patient’s observation level had been changed.

Staff were able to identify when patients were distressed and use de-escalation techniques. We found that de-escalation was used before physical intervention when a patient’s behaviour became heightened.

Staff supported patients with communication needs. For example, health and care passports were used to help staff understand how they could support patients when they were not able to communicate.

However, a family member told us that while staff were supportive, they did not always have a good understanding of their loved ones needs.

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.

Staff felt supported by managers. Staff told us that managers were visible, supportive and approachable. Staff told us morale of the team was good.

Staff were positive about working for the provider. Leaders ensured that positive work was recognised with monthly staff awards. Leaders facilitated a wellbeing event for staff, and staff members were given a day of annual leave for their birthday.

Leaders ensured staff had regular reflective practice sessions and that all staff had access. For example, reflective practice was facilitated at a time where staff on both night and days shift could attend. This meant that leaders cared for and promoted the wellbeing of their staff.

Staff had access to support for their needs through the provider’s employee assistance programme. Staff that had used the programme gave leaders positive feedback.