Spring Wood Lodge

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their 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.

We observed staff interacting warmly with patients. Patients, carers, and commissioners told us most staff were friendly, welcoming, and supportive.

Observation and engagement training had been co-produced with patients and was delivered to staff with service users. Staff said the training supported them to reflect on how they conducted patient observations to ensure patients’ dignity.

Staff directed patients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services. Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs.

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of the consequences. However, some staff could not go into further detail about the whistleblowing process.

Some patients told us that staff could maintain confidentiality better. For example, they told us how they had overheard conversations between staff about other patients. The service took potential breaches of confidentiality seriously. We saw evidence from the service that this had been reported to them and that appropriate action had been taken.

Both wards made adjustments for disabled patients or patients with poor mobility. They made sure patients could access the ward and made adjustments to meet patients’ specific communication needs. Access to the hospital building and both wards were all on one level and we saw some examples of easy read leaflets and posters on display.

Staff spoke with compassion about supporting patient needs relating to protected characteristics such as gender identity, sexuality, and religion. They understood the importance of recognising patients as individuals. For example, patients were identified by their preferred pronouns both verbally and in documentation relating to their care. Patients told us religious needs were met, for example patients had been supported to attend church on a regular basis. There was also a multi-faith room on site which patients could access to pray.

Patients were supported to increase their level of independence throughout their admission. Patients and staff told us the service supported patients to develop daily living skills and to increase their independence, choices, and level of control at appropriate points in their care.

Patients could access community leave when appropriate. Patients said even when they couldn’t do so independently, staff supported them to still access some type of leave wherever they could. For example, patients could be driven to local areas which matched their interests and remain in the car where it was deemed too high risk to allow them to be on foot. Patients said this helped improve their wellbeing at times when they may otherwise have not been allowed to leave the ward.

Patients we spoke to told us they enjoyed the choice and control staff supported them to access which increased their independence. For example, some patients had a weekly budget for shopping and cooking, some were managing their own medication, and some had been given a key card that allowed them to enter and leave the ward and hospital building.

Care plans we looked at documented patients’ individual risks and the staff we spoke to demonstrated their awareness of these. Staff could describe the services approach to managing self-harm, recognised when a patient's level of risk might be escalating, and understood how to use de-escalation techniques.

However, some patients said that they felt staff sometimes intervened too quickly and their approach could be inconsistent which was confusing and could cause them distress. The service was aware of these concerns via patient feedback, and the management team was working with staff to develop their skills and confidence with when to intervene in an incident. They regularly reviewed incidents and CCTV footage to inform this work.

Most staff we spoke to spoke positively about their experiences of working for the service. They described a culture which valued supporting one another, particularly after incidents.

If a complaint was made, staff were supported throughout the investigation process to ensure their safety and wellbeing. For example, staff said those involved in an alleged incident would be asked to work on a different ward within the hospital until a resolution had been reached. They shared how this helped to keep both staff and patients safe and spoke positively about this action being taken.

Leaders spoke with compassion about the challenges faced by staff who had recently been recruited from overseas. They demonstrated a proactive approach to supporting the wellbeing of these staff. For example, overseas nurses were given space for both professional and peer support.

Staff said the service supported their career development. The hospital leadership team were described as approachable and supportive of staff progressing into leadership roles.