All Saints Hospital

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

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 design, layout, and furnishings of the ward generally supported patients’ treatment, privacy and dignity. Staff supported patients with activities outside the service, such as family relationships. The service met the needs of all patients – including those with a protected characteristic. Staff helped patients with communication, advocacy and cultural and spiritual support. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the result.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The service used the “All About Me: Deaf recovery package” which was a tool to assist in deaf people’s recovery from mental health problems by gaining an understanding of what recovery meant to an individual and to help identify their individual goals and outcomes. Staff could use this tool with patients to ensure that the care and treatment was provided in a holistic and person-centred way. Care plans were reviewed at ward rounds and were co-produced between staff and the patient.

Patients described feeling involved in their care and treatment. Patients were involved in decision making about their care and in relation to the ward through community meetings. Patients gave an example that when they had raised concerns about food the service acted and improvements were made.

Patients stated that staff helped them with understanding aspects of their care plan and supporting them in line with their communication needs. The service was in the process of ensuring that all patient care plans were accessible in an easy-read format for the individual patient by producing versions of care plans containing the patient’s wishes and preferences.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Patients described that the service supported them to have contact with their family as per their wishes.

Patients we spoke with were not involved in community activities at the time of the assessment but described that they were working towards this.

Staff supported patients to access their chosen place of worship within the community. Managers described how the service would support patients in accessing any religious or spiritual support as required.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed. The service had relevant systems and process to record and manage this information.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, how to complain and so on. The information provided was in a form accessible to the patient group. Staff supported patients in understanding their care and treatment. This included helping them with understanding aspects of their care plan and supporting them in line with their communication needs.

The service had input from a speech and language therapist (SALT) who supported staff and patients. The SALT was working with staff to review care plans and ensure these were accessible and in an easy-read format that was based on the patient’s preference.

Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by patients.

Staff ensured carers, families and commissioners were regularly updated about the patient’s progress. Patients described how the service supported them to have contact with and to inform their family as per their wishes.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The hospital had received 4 formal complaints in the 12 months prior to the assessment. None of these complaints were specifically in relation to Appleton ward, with 3 complaints in respect of Braidwood ward and 1 about the hospital in general. One of these complaints were upheld whilst the others were not upheld.

There were no significant themes or trends across the complaints.

Patients knew how to complain or raise concerns. When patients complained or raised concerns, they received feedback.

Patients could give feedback in relation to the ward through various methods such as community meetings or direct to staff. Patients gave an example that when they had raised concerns about food the service acted, and improvements were made.

Staff protected patients who raised concerns or complaints from discrimination and harassment. Staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately. Staff received feedback on the outcome of investigation of complaints and acted on the findings.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff ensured the needs of patients with mobility issues were met and made reasonable adjustments for patients. This included implementing a falls care plan for a patient with mobility issues. Staff had completed a moving and handling assessment for the patient in January 2024, however there was no evidence staff reviewed this since then. Despite this, the service had provided the patient with appropriate aids and adaptive equipment as necessary.

Managers described that improvements had been made to discharge planning and working with external agencies and teams to prepare patients for discharge. Managers noted that previously it had felt that patients were stuck in the system.

At the time of the assessment, there was one patient who was considered a delayed discharge. The service had identified in August 2023 that they were unable to appropriately meet the patient’s needs and that the patient was inappropriately placed with them. The provider had escalated this to all relevant agencies and were holding regular meetings with the patient’s external team to try resolve this.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. Patients described that they felt listened to by staff and included in decisions about their care and treatment. Patients felt confident that they could raise any concerns within the service and gave examples of actions that the service had taken based on their feedback.

Managers noted that work around equality and diversity within the service was a challenge and required further work. Managers had made enquiries with staff about any interest in a local inclusivity group. Managers described that the focus for inclusion and diversity needed to include all aspects, as opposed to just having a focus on deafness.

The organisation had an inclusivity lead and structures in place regarding equality and diversity.

Staff received training in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights. At the time of the assessment, the hospital had a 98.6% compliance rate for the mandatory training in diversity, equity and inclusion.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Staff supported patients to make decisions about their care and treatment and their future. Patients described feeling involved in meetings about their care and treatment. Patients felt involved in decision making about their care and in relation to the ward through community meetings.

Staff created personalised care plans to account for the patient’s needs, wishes and feelings. Staff ensure all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs.