Archived: The Chimneys 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

Staff supported and involved patients in decisions about their care and treatment. Staff treated patients with kindness and compassion and knew the individual patients well. Patients' views and the views of their family and carers were sought and listened to.

This service scored 80 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. During the inspection we observed staff engaging with patients. These interactions were positive, supportive and kind.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. We saw examples of patient involvement recorded in their care plans.

Staff directed patients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services.

Patients said staff treated them with kindness and respect, were helpful and available for support when needed.

Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. Patients could access spiritual activities that were meaningful to them. The service could provide private space for prayer, and observance of religious rituals. Staff could accompany patients to places of worship. The service worked closely with a local Vicar who attended site to support the religious needs of a patient.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients and records were kept securely.

Staff treated people as individuals and made sure their care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences, taking account of their strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The service made adjustments, for example a patient who was unable to leave the hospital was supported to successfully apply for an emotional support dog. Staff told us that since, the patient had been able to go out on community leave with the dog which previously they would not have been able to do. We spoke with this person, and they told us their experience had been life changing.

However, 1 patient told us that they were scared of dogs and did not like the dog being in the dining room or that dog blankets were washed in the same washing machine as patient clothes. The service had consulted with all patients prior to the dog joined the service and put a safety plan in place for this patient.

Therapy dog training had also been facilitated on the ward and there had been a visit from therapy ponies.

Staff ensured that patients had access to appropriate spiritual support. For example, we saw that staff had arranged and supported special transport to church for a patient who used a wheelchair.

We heard from 1 patient how they had been supported to run in local “Park run” races, successfully achieving couch to 5k and how this had improved their overall physical health, fitness and general well-being. One patient had also been supported to exhibit their artwork at a local exhibition.

We saw in care notes that a patient identifying as non-binary, had their pronoun preference recorded in their care plan, and we saw from the notes that staff used this pronoun when communicating with, or about, this individual.

We saw evidence in care plans that dietary needs had been taken into account. Patients had access to a dietician who visited the service once each week. We saw a dietetic care plan had been put in place for 1 patient.

Staff assessed patients’ communication needs. Patients had access to a speech and language therapist who created communication passports. We saw communication aids and sensory needs were documented in care plans, and examples of a positive behaviour support (PBS) plan that were written in large font.

The service promoted people’s independence, so they knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Patients told us they knew their rights.

Patients had access to advocacy and knew how to do so.

We reviewed 6 care records and saw the wishes and preferences of individual patients had been considered.

Staff listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff took action to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risks. We saw examples of risk assessments and care management plans such as for seizures, mobility and sensory risks and self-neglect that were care planned for according to the individual patient needs.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, patients and update risk assessments and care plans following incidents. Staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when patients’ behaviours became heightened. Staff were trained in reducing restrictive interventions. Patients on enhanced observations had a reducing observation plan in place.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of staff, they supported and enabled them to always deliver person centred care.

Staff told us they were given opportunities to win prizes through raffles and staff are recognised for their work through “KITE” awards. There was a wellbeing champion, and staff had been offered reflexology.

Most staff we spoke with felt respected, supported and valued by their line managers. They said they enjoyed their work.

However, some staff told us that the recent acuity of patients, and the high level of observations needed meant that staff were feeling under pressure. We reviewed the most recent staff survey results for 2024/2025. These showed that 77% of staff felt the amount of stress in their job was manageable and 87% felt positive about themselves at work. 69% of staff felt they received meaningful recognition when they did a good job. An action plan was developed following the survey.

The service’s staff sickness rate was lower than the provider target of 3% at 2.2%.

Staff appraisals included conversations about professional development and how it could be supported. At the time of inspection 90% of staff had received an annual appraisal of their work.