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 rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

Staff treated young people with compassion and kindness. Young people told us most staff were kind. Staff involved young people in their care plans. Staff understood the individual needs of young people and supported them to manage their care and treatment. Staff gave young people independence, choice and control over their treatment. Young people had access to regular community meetings. Staff felt supported by leaders.

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.

Most staff treated young people with dignity and respect. We observed staff interacting with and supporting young people on the wards. Staff were respectful and responsive towards young people.

Most young people told us staff treated them with dignity and respect. One young person told us staff were “genuinely good.” Another young person told us that staff “sit and talk it out” and there was “always someone to try and help”. This meant most young people felt supported by staff.

Most young people felt staff were kind, however 1 young person reported that staff were not always kind when interacting with them. Another young person told us that staff were not always quiet in the corridor at night and did not engage with patients.

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 young people as individuals. We observed blackboards outside of bedrooms for young people to communicate their pronouns or preferred name to staff.

Young people had access to spiritual support. There was a quiet room on the wards, which could also be used as a faith room. There was a multi faith box containing religious texts from different religions.

There was a policy in place to support transgender patients. The wards supported transgender awareness week and information was made available on how to support transgender people.

We observed murals painted on walls by young people in a bedroom and in corridors. This meant staff supported young people to personalise their living space and used young people’s strengths to do this.

Staff took people’s culture and unique background into account and celebrated different cultures. Cultural events were organised, where staff were encouraged to wear their traditional attire to work and share cultural food.

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.

Young people had access to visits and there was a quiet space for them to meet their families and carers. Staff told us that visits were after school or between 11am to 7pm at the weekend. Young people had access to their mobile phones and this was risk assessed. Mobile phone use was restricted at certain points of the day. For example, young people had access to their mobile phones between 10am and 12pm on the weekend and 6pm to 10pm on weekdays.

Staff ensured young people had access to section 17 leave. We reviewed section 17 leave paperwork and found risk assessments were completed prior to a young person going on leave. Section 17 leave risk assessments contained descriptions of young people, details of where the young person was authorised to go, risks and recent changes in presentation. This meant that patients were supported with independence and maintaining community connections.

Young people had access to a choice of therapeutic activities on the wards. There were activities available, such as cooking, pychesoma (an exercise programme for mental health patients), arts and crafts and pet therapy. Young people told us there was a choice of activities available. For example, they could get their nails painted.

Staff supported young people to personalise their living environment. In 1 young person’s bedroom we observed Lego and pictures on walls.

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 young people’s needs were responded to. We found 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. One young person told us “staff know me, what to say and how to help.” However, another young person told us they asked for help and were “not supported.”

We saw evidence of staff responding to individual needs. For example, staff told us they had responded to the increasing needs of young people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) by ensuring that young people had individual positive behaviour support plans in place.

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 leaders. Staff told us managers were visible, supportive and approachable. Staff told us they felt able to raise concerns.

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 through the providers’ employee assistance programme.