• Mental Health
  • Independent mental health service

Archived: Garrow House

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings

115 Heslington Road, York, North Yorkshire, YO10 5BS (01904) 431100

Provided and run by:
Turning Point

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

29 July 2020, remote interviews conducted 07 August 2020

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We did not review the rating of this service as we had conducted a focused inspection in response to risk. Garrow House de-registered with the CQC on 27 August 2020.

  • The service did not provide consistently safe care. The ward environment was not safely maintained, and they had not responded in a timely manner to environmental risks. The service was unable to demonstrate that all staff were trained to an appropriate level to safely carry out their role, including in safeguarding, immediate life support and the use of restraint. Staff did not always assess and manage risk well, there were a high number of incidents within the service and they did not always conduct appropriate checks following head injuries.
  • The governance oversight had not been effective in identifying and responding to documentation errors. The service made multiple errors and omissions in patient documentation; including observation records, restraint documentation, post-rapid tranquilisation forms and patient allergy information. They had not reported statutory notifications to the appropriate professional bodies within the appropriate timeframes. Staff did not feel supported by Turning Point as a provider.
  • The provider had not fully addressed all the concerns identified in the warning notices issued following our inspection on 28 and 29 January 2020. As the provider closed the service and de-registered the location on 27 August 2020, we did not take further enforcement action for this concern.

However,

  • The wards had enough nurses and doctors on shift who were familiar with patients despite the staffing difficulties they had faced. There had been recent improvements to incident documentation and safeguarding following increased oversight from the risk and assurance team. Staff felt supported by the service-level management team and they continued to strive to improve the service up to the date of their closure.

28 and 29 January 2020

During a routine inspection

We are placing Garrow House in special measures.

Services placed in special measures will be inspected again within six months. If insufficient improvements have been made such that there remains a rating of inadequate overall or for any key question or core service, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating the service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve. The service will be kept under review and, if needed, could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement we will move to close the service by adopting our proposal to vary the provider’s registration to remove this location or cancel the provider’s registration.

We rated Garrow House as inadequate because:

  • The service did not provide safe care. The ward environments were not safe and did not have enough nurses and doctors that knew the patients well. There were high vacancy rates and high uses of agency staff. Skill mix on shifts was not always appropriate for patient needs and there were high numbers of unfilled shifts. The service did not always implement fire safety procedures effectively and staff training, and induction did not keep patients safe from avoidable harm.
  • Staff did not manage risks well. They did not manage medicines safely; there were errors and omissions in the prescribing, administering, recording and storing of medicines. The service used restrictive practices, there was no clinical rationale for restrictions and staff did not consistently apply them. Staff did not always check patients’ risk assessments and some staff gave items to patients that they then harmed themselves with. Managers did not ensure all service risks were identified on the risk register and control measures were not always implemented.
  • The service was not well led, and the governance processes did not ensure that ward procedures ran smoothly. The service had staffing issues that impacted on the safe care and treatment of patients. Systems for record keeping, access to IT systems, mechanisms to monitor incidents, policies, medicines management and audits were not implemented effectively. The service did not manage patient safety incidents well. Incident review meetings to review trends did not occur regularly. Meeting minutes did not clearly record clinical discussion or detail actions. Staff debriefs did not always occur following incidents
  • Staff training was not well managed. Eleven of 14 mandatory courses were below provider target. Safeguarding training on how to recognise and report abuse did not meet the expected levels identified in best practice guidance. Only 36% of qualified nursing staff had in date safeguarding training. Staff, including managers, could not confirm if training in the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health Act Code of Practice was mandatory. Induction training was not delivered consistently. Staff had not all completed all elements of the induction programme, and dialectical behavioural therapy training had not been delivered since 2018.
  • Patients said that staff were too busy at night to support them and that some agency staff did not understand their needs or how to care for them. There was limited involvement with families and carers. Staff did not have formal feedback tools to gather feedback about the service from families or carers.
  • Staff provided a range of treatments suitable to the needs of the patients, but these could not be delivered in line with national guidance about best practice because of staffing issues.

However;

  • Staff understood the individual needs of patients and respected their privacy and dignity.  Staff actively involved patients in decisions about the service and their care. 
  • Staff developed holistic, recovery-oriented care plans informed by a comprehensive assessment. The service worked to a recognised model of mental health rehabilitation for patients with personality disorder. Staff planned and managed discharge well and liaised well with services that would provide aftercare. As a result, discharge was rarely delayed for other than a clinical reason.
  • Staff included or had access to a full range of specialists required to treat patients on the ward. Staff worked well together as a multidisciplinary team and with those outside the service who would have a role in providing aftercare.
  • Managers ensured that staff received supervision and appraisals. The service environment was clean.