Spring Wood Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

This means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We looked at 4 care records looked at during the assessment.

Staff completed a comprehensive mental health assessment of the patient in a timely manner at, or soon after, admission. These initial assessments formed the basis of comprehensive care plans for each patient.

Staff assessed patients’ physical health needs in a timely manner after admission and where necessary created robust physical health care plans and took action to meet the needs of those that required it. All necessary physical observations were taking place, for example, blood tests and electrocardiograms. Staff were making sure that they monitored the side effects of medications that could be harmful.

Staff developed care plans that met the needs identified during assessment. Care plans incorporated the views of the patient and were written in a way that could be easily understood. Care plans were personalised, holistic and recovery-oriented.

Staff updated care plans when necessary. It was clear that patients had regular time with their named nurse and this was reflected in regular updates to peoples care plans.

Staff provided a range of care and treatment interventions suitable for the patient group. The interventions were those recommended by, and were delivered in line with, guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. These included medication and psychological therapies.

Staff ensured that patients had good access to physical healthcare, including access to specialists when needed. A GP attended the ward on a weekly basis.

Staff assessed and met patients’ needs for food and drink and for specialist nutrition and hydration, for example where people had allergies to certain foods. However, there was some feedback from patients that the quality of food was poor, this had been noted in community meetings and feedback to the management team who had taken action.

Staff participated in clinical audit, benchmarking and quality improvement initiatives. Audits included physical health monitoring, health and safety and medicines management. These were comprehensive and included a range of comments and actions aimed at improving practice.

The team included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of patients in the service. As well as doctors and nurses, there were occupational therapists, clinical psychologists, social workers, pharmacists, speech and language therapists and health care support workers.

Staff were experienced and had the right qualifications, skills and knowledge to meet the needs of the patient group. Managers provided new staff with an appropriate induction, this included bank and agency staff.

Managers ensured that staff had access to regular team meetings. These were well attended by a range of staff, nurses and health care workers. We reviewed minutes from these meetings which showed that a range of topics were discussed for example lessons learnt, patient feedback, and safety and risk and cleanliness.

Managers provided staff with supervision. The percentage of staff that received regular supervision was 100%. The percentage of staff that had had an appraisal in the last 12 months was 98%.

Managers identified the learning needs of staff and provided them with opportunities to develop their skills and knowledge. This included training relevant to the patient group for example, observation and engagement of complex care.

Managers dealt with poor staff performance promptly and effectively.

Staff held regular and effective multidisciplinary meetings. Feedback from patients, staff, carers and other attendees was very positive about the work that was undertaken at these meetings. We were told that meetings were inclusive, well organised and happened on a regular basis. We observed one multidisciplinary meeting, and it was clear that the patient was at the centre of all of the discussions, they were treated with kindness and compassion, and they were given choices about their treatment at every opportunity.

Staff shared information about patients at handover meetings which occurred at each change of shift. Staff told us these meetings enabled them to effectively share information to keep patients and others safe from harm.

The teams had effective working relationships with teams outside the organisation, for example, local authority social services and placing commissioners.

Staff supported patients to live healthier lives, for example, smoking cessation schemes, healthy eating advice, managing cardiovascular risks, screening for cancer, and dealing with issues relating to substance misuse.

Ward activities helped promote a healthy lifestyle for patients, for example there was access to an onsite gym, yoga classes and other exercise classes. Patients were also supported to develop their independent living skills where this was appropriate.

Staff used recognised rating scales. For example, to assess and record severity and outcomes, potential malnutrition, side effects and overall wellbeing.

Staff used technology to support patients effectively, to ensure that tasks were carried out and recorded in a way that meant they were accessible and useful.

Staff took all practical steps to enable patients to make their own decisions. Staff communicated well, presented options and kept patients informed about their treatment options.

For patients who might have impaired mental capacity, staff assessed and recorded capacity to consent appropriately. They did this on a decision-specific basis in relation to significant decisions.

When patients lacked capacity, staff made decisions in their best interests, recognising the importance of the person’s wishes, feelings, culture and history