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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to having the skilled staff to deliver care. The service had made improvements and was no longer in breach of regulation. They had a comprehensive multi-disciplinary team, and patients were able to access a range of appropriate psychological provisions. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 reviewed 10 patient care records during this inspection. Records showed staff completed a comprehensive mental health assessment in a timely manner, either at admission or soon after.

Care plans reflected assessed mental health needs, were personalised, and reflected the individual needs and preferences of each patient. For patients identified as neurodiverse, this was reflected in their care plans.

Patients' physical health needs were assessed in a timely manner after admission. Both patients and staff told us about how the service supported patients’ physical health needs to be met.

Care plans were reviewed and updated by staff on a regular basis and in response to incidents and identified risks. Care plans were recovery-oriented and involved discharge planning.

Patients had access to a range of appropriate care and treatment interventions. The wards offered a range of therapies in line with NICE guidelines. For example, dialectical behavioural therapy. Staff supported patients to access appropriate training and work opportunities.

Patients were supported to access physical healthcare even when their needs meant they were unable to leave the hospital. For example, the service had arranged a weekly GP drop-in service for patients unable to visit the local GP at their practice and a mobile dentist who was able to adapt their approach to meet the sensory needs of patients if needed.

Staff told us about several quality improvement initiatives including a recent project on improving physical health support for patients which resulted in a member of staff being supported to gain a personal training qualification to support patients in the gym.

Regular clinical audits took place within the service, including those conducted by external partners in pharmacy and the host commissioner for the service. The service engaged with these audits as part of their quality assurance processes.

Leaders made sure staff had the appropriate experience and knowledge to meet patient needs. For example, overseas nurses recently recruited were provided additional support to develop their understanding of mental healthcare in England.

Staff received regular supervision. Compliance rates for nursing staff were 100% across both Byron and Bronte ward. For healthcare workers, compliance was 95% on Bryon ward and 100% on Bronte ward.

Managers dealt with poor staff performance promptly and effectively.

Mental Health Act

91% of staff on Bronte and Byron wards had completed their mandatory training in the Mental Health Act. Most staff we spoke to could describe the principles of the Mental Health Act.

Information about independent mental health advocacy was displayed around the ward for patients. Patients told us that they had not used the independent mental health advocate provided by the local authority, but said they had regular and effective contact with the generic advocate commissioned by the service. Patients and staff told us that they felt this service met patients’ needs.

Patient records showed staff explained patient rights to them. However, some patients we spoke to did not remember receiving this information.

Staff ensured that patients were able to take Section 17 leave (permission for patients to leave hospital) when this had been granted. Staff stored copies of patients' detention papers and associated records (for example, Section 17 leave forms) correctly and so that they were available to the staff that needed access to them. Staff also had easy access to administrative support and legal advice on implementation of the Mental Health Act and its Code of Practice.

Both wards had regular team meetings. Handovers took place for each shift and ensured that staff had the information needed for their shift.

The teams on both wards had effective working relationships and staff worked across the different wards in the hospital to support staffing levels when needed. Staff told us how they supported each other's wellbeing and highlighted feeling able to approach their peers and members of the leadership team for support or with suggestions.

Commissioners and other stakeholders also reported regular, prompt communication with the service. They described the team at the service as approachable, professional, and welcoming within their feedback to us.

Staff supported patients to live healthier lives. For example, patients had access to a well-equipped on-site which enabled patients to improve their physical and mental health.

Patients were offered a variety of food options including a salad bar. Some patients were supported to plan and cook their own meals. Staff promoted healthy living for example, by encouraging patients to reduce energy drink intake.

Staff used recognised rating scales as part of assessing patients and monitoring their progress. These were also used as part of regular reviews of care during a patient's admission, for example to support discussion during ward rounds.

Patient records were also stored electronically. Staff reported they were able to access patient information easily and in a way that allowed them to effectively support patients.

Patients told us staff supported them to make their own decisions where possible. Patients said they could tell staff about things they didn't like about their care, and that alternative options for them were explored with them where appropriate.

Staff understood the need to make decisions in the best interests of their patients where they were assessed as lacking capacity, including by recognising the person’s wishes, feelings, culture, and history when making decisions. Staff did this on a decision-specific basis.

Information for patients about their rights relating to their care and treatment was clearly displayed on both wards. Patients told us they could access a generic advocate and that this had been effective for them. However, staff did not always understand when and why to refer patients for independent advocacy.