Victoria Gardens

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained as good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care. Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness. They respected patients’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of patients and supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

However, there had recently been changes in the service and provider which had cause some anxiety and a decline in morale for staff.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

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

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

During the inspection we observed staff attitudes and behaviours while interacting with patients. Staff had kind and friendly relationships with patients and were knowledgeable about individual care and treatment. Staff were discreet, respectful and responsive, and patients spoke positively about staff and the support they received from them. However, one patient told us he felt that night staff were less responsive to requests.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Patients were encouraged to attend their MDT meetings, and patients we spoke with told us they felt able to ask questions about their care and treatment, and they felt listened to. This was also reflected in feedback we received from carers.

Staff directed patients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services. The service had provider level agreements with services such as dentists, opticians and podiatry, and patients were supported to access them in the community with staff or independently.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients. For example, one to one time with their named nurse was conducted away from the communal areas, in bedrooms or quiet rooms.

Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. There was a prayer room onsite, and patients were supported to access churches, mosques and temples in the community. On one ward a memorial painting was in the quiet room that had been painted in memory of a patient’s loved one, and as the wards had moved, this was going to be repainted on the new ward.

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of the consequences. Staff told us they felt confident to raise concerns and could access support when required.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The service made adjustments for disabled patients. There was disabled access to the service via a side entrance, as the front door of the service was downstairs. Managers acknowledged that improved communication was required if there was a visitor attending who required use of the side entrance, particularly at the weekend.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patient rights, and how to complain. This included information on how to register and cast votes in the upcoming local elections. There were displays around the service to inform patients, which was visual and in easy read formats to support patients with understanding.

Staff were able to provide care plans, information leaflets in easy read formats and other languages. When required staff could access interpreters and signers easily.

Patients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances. This information was established prior to admission, and the kitchen staff would be notified as part of the nursing admission checklist.

Staff ensured that patients had access to appropriate spiritual support.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Patient’s regularly attended ward round, and the patients we spoke with felt they could give feedback and raise concerns. During the inspection we reviewed patient care records and found that patients were involved in their care and treatment, they could give their opinions and were given choices. However, these discussions were not always reflected in care plans.

Each ward had regular community meetings, with a set agenda, and minutes displayed in the communal areas. This included previous minutes, planned events, feedback on the ward environment, restrictive interventions, achievements and a ‘you said, we did’ section. We observed part of a community meeting during the inspection; patients were engaged and enthusiastic.

Patients were encouraged to maintain relationships with friends and family. Some patients regularly went on community visits with their family members independently.

Patients understood their rights in terms of the right to complain and to have access to advocacy services. Patients were encouraged to use the correct channels to communicate their views.

The service conducted regular patient and carer surveys. Patients completed surveys about their admission, discharge and general care and treatment. Action plans were in place to address areas of improvement identified from the feedback.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues and planned for these accordingly. For example, being aware that certain activities might have content that could be a trigger for individuals and providing alternative activities or leave to support them.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, patients. Staff completed thorough handovers to ensure that any changes in presentation were highlighted to the team coming on to shift.

Staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when patients’ behaviours became heightened. We observed a staff member’s awareness that a patient was beginning to feel distressed and responded quickly to help the patient de-escalate through re-direction.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff.

There had recently been changes in the service and provider which had caused some anxiety and a decline in morale for staff.

Within Victoria Gardens, one ward had closed, and the service no longer provided Acute wards for adults of working age and psychiatric intensive care units. This had created some anxiety for staff regarding the future of the service, and other staff had been moved to other Elysium services following the ward closure. Staff told us that on some occasions they were asked to work in other services, which also caused anxiety.

Similarly, the provider had changed policies regarding overtime pay and pensions, which resulted in staff feeling less appreciated. Leaders also raised concerns that the change would result in an increase of agency staff to cover shifts, which would mean staff were unfamiliar with patients, and care would not be as person centred as it could be.

This feedback was reflected in responses from the staff survey completed in January 2026. There was low positive feedback in the questions regarding staff getting meaningful recognition for their job, the future of the organisation and opportunities for career progression. An action plan had been put in place to help address some of these areas, which included recognising staff achievements through ‘Shout Out Fridays’, reviewing the appraisals to ensure they were meaningful regarding career opportunities and monitoring staff morale.

However, most staff that we spoke with said they felt supported by their team and immediate managers within the service. The ward managers and registered manager were supportive, listened to concerns, and where possible adjusted work patterns to better support staff. Staff told us that they were proud of the work they did in the service, and the care and treatment they provided for patients.

The service’s staff sickness and absence were low.