Archived: Keats House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

• The service was easy to access. Staff planned and managed discharge well. The service had alternative care pathways and referral systems for people whose needs it could not meet.
• The design, layout, and furnishings of treatment rooms supported patients’ treatment, privacy and dignity. Patients had access to hot drinks in reception.
• The service made adjustments for people in response to their needs, including those with a protected characteristic, mobility, or with communication support needs.
• The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the results, and shared these with the whole team.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

Staff engaged with patients, and their friends and families (where appropriate) to develop support plans that met their needs and ensured they had the relevant information needed to make informed decisions about their care.

Patients reported that they felt supported, informed and involved with their treatment decisions and care planning. All patients we spoke with reported they had discussed their plan of care and were happy with it.

In the records we reviewed we saw patients’ voice for example highlighting what they wanted from their treatment.

The service had a very clear scope of practice and understood the needs of its patient group. If needed, the service could refer patients to other external services to support areas out of scope of this service.

The consultant psychiatrist understood their role and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and associated Code of Practice. The consultant psychiatrist had previously undergone comprehensive training and demonstrated clear knowledge of the Act. Due to the scope of practice, referrals for people subject to treatment under the Mental Health Act, including those on community treatment orders, did not sit within the acceptance criteria for the service.

Staff understood and respected the individual needs of each patient. Staff showed a good understanding of patient’s needs, circumstances and goals.

The service could provide appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats tailored to individual needs.

The service could support and make adjustments for people with disabilities, communication needs or other specific needs if needed.

The service asked patients for feedback about their care and did this using technology to make it as easy as possible for people. The most recent response from 120 patients showed feedback about care was rated ‘outstanding’. The service analysed the data to identify any areas for improved experience for the patient, and as a result, moved to using online appointment system that made booking appointments an easier process. Staff also involved patients by conducting a survey on where they would like the service to be based due to having to relocate in the near future.

The service had received no complaints within the last 12 months. However, there were appropriate systems and processes in place to ensure any concerns and complaints were treated seriously, investigated and any lessons learned would be shared with the whole team.

Staff understood the policy on complaints and knew how to handle them

Patients, relatives and carers knew how to complain or raise concerns.

The service was easy to access. The service offered pre-booked appointments at a range of different times to meet the needs of patients. The service did not offer walk in appointments and did not operate on a 24-hour basis. The service responded quickly to any enquiries or requests for appointments.

The service had a clear scope of practice and only accepted referrals for patients whose needs it could meet safely.

The building the service was based was accessible for people with physical disabilities.

Patients had flexibility and choice in the appointment times available. All patients we spoke to said that the service was always quick to respond to their requests for appointments. Appointments ran on time.

The service was aware of the importance of equity in experience and outcomes.

Patients stated that they felt that they were able to raise any concerns and how to do this.

The consultant psychiatrist supported patients to make decisions about their care and treatment and future.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs.