St Martha's

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

People were involved in decisions about their care. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it.

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.

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

Patients had access to independent advocacy. There was one Independent Mental Health Act (IMHA) advocate available for all three wards at the hospital (with approximately 40 patients). Staff said that advocates used to visit once a week and make themselves known to patients but now there was only one person available this wasn’t always possible. Staff said they could contact them for specific issues. Staff said the local authority were advertising for another IMHA to provide this service for patients.

Patients had access to information about external support organisations. The information board displayed information about IMHAs, the Mental Health Act (MHA), tribunals, how to make an MHA complaint and how to speak up.

Patients were confident to speak up when they had a question or concern. For example, the ward had a ‘you said, we did board’ which was blank but there was a photo board of recent afternoon tea session which was directly from patient feedback.

Patients felt staff had responded to concerns they raised. Patients took part in community meetings which were hospital wide and occurred once a quarter. They also took part in ward meetings once a month where they could share any concerns specific to their own ward. There were in total six complaints in the past 12 months. Four had been received from one individual and the other two as anonymous. For example, one complaint was about the chemicals used on the floors. This was fully investigated but not upheld. The team replaced the cleaning chemicals and ensured this was to the complainant’s satisfaction.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Staff and patients knew and understood the policies and procedures in relation to raising concerns. Patients were confident that staff would act on any complaints they raised. Patients could raise concerns at their one to one meetings, care review meetings and when they attended their MDT meetings. Patients were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.