The Care Quality Commission
  • Mental Health
  • Independent mental health service

Archived: The Hayes

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

19 Newport Road, Stafford, Staffordshire, ST16 1BA (01785) 748447

Provided and run by:
Midlands Psychology C.I.C

Important: This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All Inspections

30 - 31 July 2019

During a routine inspection

We rated The Hayes as good because:

  • The service provided safe care. Clinical premises where children and young people were seen were safe and clean. There were no waiting lists ensuring that young people were seen promptly. Staff understood how to protect children and young people from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so. All information needed to deliver patient care was available to all relevant staff when they needed it and in an accessible form.
  • Staff developed care plans informed by a comprehensive assessment. They provided a range of treatments suitable to the needs of the children and young people and staff engaged in clinical audit to evaluate the quality of care they provided.
  • Staff considered risk within their appointments and care notes but did not always complete the risk assessment document to evidence that risk had been considered, for example by documenting there was no risk.
  • The teams included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of the children and young people. Managers ensured that these staff received training, supervision and appraisal. Staff worked well together as a multi-disciplinary team and with relevant services outside the organisation.
  • Staff treated children and young people with compassion and kindness and understood the individual needs of children and young people. They actively involved children and young people and families and carers in care decisions.
  • The teams met the needs of all young people who use the service – including those with a protected characteristic. Staff helped children and young people with communication, advocacy and cultural support.
  • The service had clear criteria for which children and young people would be offered a service. The service had a range of rooms and equipment to support treatment and care. Staff treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the results
  • The service was well led, and the governance processes ensured that procedures relating to the work of the service ran smoothly.

However:

  • Whilst notes were accessible staff did not always follow best practice when completing their care note; notes were not always continuous with page numbers, dated and signed. There was no index and therefore records were not always easy to navigate.
  • Not all staff could explain the principles of Gillick competence as they applied to people under the age of 16 and we did not find evidence that Gillick competence had been assessed in one record. Gillick competency is where a person (under 16 years of age) is assessed and deemed to have the competence to make decision about their own care, without the need for parental consent.
  • We found four responses to complaints to be defensive in their tone and content.

15 December 2016

During a routine inspection

We found the following areas of good practice;

  • The environment was visibly clean and all areas were well maintained. We saw electrical equipment had been safety tested and was up-to-date.
  • There were enough staff and records showed all of the staff had completed their mandatory training.
  • There were a range of evidence-based interventions used for assessing and working with young people on the autistic spectrum, and their families.
  • The National Autistic Society had selected the service to participate in a research study starting January 2017.
  • There were no waiting lists for the service. Most of the young people referred were seen between four and 13 weeks after referral for their first appointment.
  • There was good staff morale and sickness rate at the time of the inspection was low.
  • All of the staff had been trained in and had a good understanding of safeguarding children.

However, we also found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve;

  • There were no cleaning schedules for toys.
  • The scales and blood pressure machine was not calibrated.
  • There was no access to leaflets in languages other than English.

17 June 2013

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection as part of our schedule of inspections to check on the care and welfare of people using this service. The visit was announced to ensure we could meet with the registered provider and inspect the building from which the service was based.

We spoke with the provider, two clinicians, a school nurse, a director of a care service and four parents of people using the service.

As part of the inspection we discussed consent with the provider and we established the ways in which consent was gained. The provider told us they ensured informed consent was gained formally and informally as part of their service.

We looked at care and welfare of people using the service and how this was documented.

We looked at safeguarding and the provider informed us of how people were protected from abuse, how the staff were trained in signs of abuse and how they deal with it appropriately.

We saw that the provider collected comments from people that used the service. This meant that the provider monitored the quality of the service that people received and we saw evidence that should people not be fully satisfied the provider took action to address this.

Some of the feedback comments included:

'Very friendly. I felt like I wasn't wasting anyone's time'.

'Staff very supportive, took my concerns seriously and offered advice on how to solve issues. Telephone sessions were very beneficial to speak about specific issues'.