Spring Wood Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

This means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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.

Staff knew and understood the provider’s vision and values and how they were applied in the work of their team.

The provider’s senior leadership team had successfully communicated the provider’s vision and values to the frontline staff in this service.

Staff had the opportunity to contribute to discussions about the strategy for their service, especially where the service was changing. Teams met on a regular basis and staff told us that their opinions were listened to.

Staff could explain how they were working to deliver high quality care within the budgets available.

Leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles. Staff told us that they had confidence in the decisions that leaders made.

Leaders had a good understanding of the services they managed. They could explain clearly how the teams were working to provide high quality care.

Leaders were visible and approachable for patients and staff. Patients and staff told us that they had good relationships with leaders and that they saw them on a regular basis.

Leadership development opportunities were available, including opportunities for staff to progress onto more senior positions.

Patients and carers had opportunities to give feedback on the service they received in a manner that reflected their individual needs.

Managers and staff had access to the feedback from patients, carers and staff and used it to make improvements. They gathered this through regular community meetings and by spending time in and around the wards. Manager took action as a result of the feedback that they gathered.

Patients and carers were involved in decision-making about changes to the service through regular community meetings that occurred on the ward.

Staff were able to apply to work flexibly. For example, flexible working agreements to support caring responsibilities and health issues.

Managers put reasonable adjustments in place for staff members to help them carry out their role.

The provider undertook equality monitoring of staff within the service to ensure it was diverse in its make-up and representative of the patient group.

There was a clear framework of what must be discussed at a ward, team or location level in team meetings to ensure that essential information, such as learning from incidents and complaints, was shared and discussed. Managers used a range of mechanisms to ensure that staff were kept up to date, such as team meetings, newsletters and handover meetings.

Staff had implemented recommendations from reviews of deaths, incidents, complaints and safeguarding alerts at the service level.

Staff undertook or participated in local clinical audits. The audits provided assurance and staff acted on the results when needed.

Staff understood the arrangements for working with other teams, both within the provider and external, to meet the needs of the patients. Teams within the hospital worked well together to work towards the shared goal of delivering effective care and treatment. External stakeholders told us that staff demonstrated a good understanding of the need for joint working.

Staff maintained and had access to the risk register at location level. Staff at ward level could escalate concerns when required. Staff concerns matched those on the risk register.

The service had plans for emergencies. For example, adverse weather or a flu outbreak.

Staff had access to the equipment and information technology (IT) needed to do their work. The IT infrastructure, including the telephone system, worked well and helped to improve the quality of care.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records.

Team managers had access to information to support them with their management role. This included information on the performance of the service, staffing and patient care.

Information was in an accessible format, and was timely, accurate and identified areas for improvement.

External stakeholders, including commissioners, reported regular and effective engagement with the service. Commissioners also told us how when they raised concerns with the service, the service was responsive in addressing them. Stakeholders also told us that information sharing relating to safeguarding and risk management was consistent and the service collaborated well with local authority safeguarding partners.

We saw evidence of continuous learning and improvement during our assessment of the service. Throughout our assessment, staff demonstrated an ability to reflect on their own practice and the approach of the service. The service had conducted recent quality improvement projects informed by feedback and data. Staff also told us about how they had developed and delivered staff training on conducting patient observations in collaboration with a service user. They described the impact of this training on staff’s approach and explained the value of patient involvement in the project.