Cygnet Pindar House

We have not inspected this service before. We rated it as good because:

• The service provided safe care. The ward environments were safe and clean. The wards had enough nurses and doctors. Staff assessed and managed risk well. They minimised the use of restrictive practices, managed medicines safely and followed good practice with respect to safeguarding.
• Staff developed holistic, recovery-oriented care plans informed by a comprehensive assessment. They provided a range of treatments suitable to the needs of the patients cared for in a mental health rehabilitation ward and in line with national guidance about best practice. Staff engaged in clinical audit to evaluate the quality of care they provided.
• The ward teams included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of patients on the wards. Managers ensured that these staff received training, supervision and appraisal. The ward staff worked well together as a multidisciplinary team and with those outside the ward who would have a role in providing aftercare.
• Staff understood and discharged their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and understood the individual needs of patients. They actively involved patients and families and carers in care decisions.
• 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.
• The service worked to a model of mental health rehabilitation based on national standards. Managers at all levels in the hospital had the right skills and abilities to run a service providing high-quality sustainable care.

However:

• Managers could not provide assurance that all environmental risk assessments, patient care plan goal reviews and clinical records audits had been completed properly and in line with the provider’s policies.
• Patient activity timetables were general and not always tailored to individual need.
• The service did not always keep contemporaneous records. Information was recorded in several different places, in a mixture of electronic and paper records and staff did not always know where to record important health information. We also found one example of a procedure being carried out without the best interest decision being properly recorded.
• Staff did not have the knowledge necessary to provide information to appropriate carers on how to access a carer’s assessment.