Queensway Hospital Also known as Oak Tree Forest Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

Good: Staff assessed the physical and mental health of all patients on admission. They developed individual care plans which were reviewed regularly through multidisciplinary discussion and updated as needed. Staff provided a range of treatment and care for patients based on national guidance and best practice. The ward team included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of patients on the ward. Staff from different disciplines worked together as a team to benefit patients. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health Act Code of Practice and discharged these well.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

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

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

We reviewed 5 care plans.

Staff completed a comprehensive mental health assessment of the patient in a timely manner at, or soon after, admission. Psychological formulations were created for all patients and the multi-disciplinary team discussed the best therapeutic approach for each patient. All patients had a positive behaviour support plan and the autism champion was developing communication and hospital passports with patients, as required.

Staff assessed patients’ physical health needs in a timely manner after admission. Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) and Global Assessment of Functioning scales were completed.

Staff developed care plans that met the needs identified during assessment, they were personalised, holistic and recovery oriented. All patients had an individual timetable and we viewed a 7-day timetable for 1 patient. We received feedback from advocacy regarding patients’ personal timetables and were told the care team tailored personal plans for individual patients’ health and well-being. Staff updated care plans when necessary.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health Act Code of Practice and discharged these well.

Staff provided a range of care and treatment interventions suitable for the patient group. The interventions were those recommended by, and were delivered in line with, guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Psychological therapies offered included Dialectical Behavioural Therapy, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and Cognitive Remediation Therapy (CRT). The psychologist was beginning training in Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing therapy in July 2026.

Staff ensured that patients had good access to physical healthcare, including access to specialists when needed. 

Staff assessed and met patients’ needs for food and drink and for specialist nutrition and hydration. The hospital encountered some difficulties in accessing Speech and Language Therapy (SLT) and had recently sourced a private SLT employed on a flexible, as-needed basis.

Staff participated in clinical audit, benchmarking and quality improvement initiatives. 

The team included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of patients in the service. As well as doctors and nurses, healthcare assistants, occupational therapists, psychologists, dieticians, family therapists and autism champion. The hospital had an assistant psychologist starting in June 2026 and part of their role was to develop group sessions.

Staff were experienced and qualified and had the right skills and knowledge to meet the needs of the patient group. The specialty doctor told us they had completed an ADHD assessor course, attended an autism conference, completed deprivation of liberty safeguards training and joined regular academic presentations. 

Managers provided staff with supervision (meetings to discuss case management, to reflect on and learn from practice, and for personal support and professional development) and appraisal of their work performance. The percentage of staff that received regular supervision was 100%. All staff we spoke with told us that they felt well supported. 

The percentage of staff that had had appraisals in the 12 months prior to our inspection was 94%.

Managers ensured that staff had access to regular team meetings. 

Managers identified the learning needs of staff and provided them with opportunities to develop their skills and knowledge and ensured that staff received the necessary specialist training for their roles. Staff completed training in eating disorders and nasogastric feeding which were 100% compliant. Staff were 95% compliant with mandatory online training on learning disability and autism and 100% compliant for a one-day, face-to-face program on learning disability and autism. Managers dealt with poor staff performance promptly and effectively. 

Managers provided new staff and agency staff with an appropriate induction. 

Mental Health Act

Staff were trained in and had a good understanding of the Mental Health Act, the Code of Practice and the guiding principles.

Staff had easy access to administrative support and legal advice on implementation of the Mental Health Act and its Code of Practice. The service was managing cross border arrangements well for a patient supported by a court appointed advocate who the hospital have regular meetings with. Staff knew who their Mental Health Act administrators were.

Staff had easy access to local Mental Health Act policies and procedures and to the Code of Practice.

Patients had easy access to information about independent mental health advocacy.

Staff explained to patients their rights under the Mental Health Act in a way that they could understand, repeated it as required and recorded that they had done it. We saw this was recorded appropriately. 

Staff ensured that patients were able to take Section 17 leave (permission for patients to leave hospital) when this has been granted.

Staff stored copies of patients' detention papers and associated records (for example, Section 17 leave forms) correctly and so that they were available to all staff that needed access to them.

The service displayed a notice to tell informal patients that they could leave the ward freely.

Care plans referred to identified Section 117 aftercare services to be provided for those who had been subject to section 3 or equivalent Part 3 powers authorising admission to hospital for treatment. 

Staff did regular audits to ensure that the Mental Health Act was being applied correctly and there was evidence of learning from those audits.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff held regular and effective multidisciplinary meetings. We observed a multi-disciplinary team meeting and a care programme approach (CPA) meeting during inspection. These meetings were joined by several members of the team and included case managers and care coordinators. Patients were invited to join either in person or via videocall.

Staff shared information about patients at effective handover meetings within the team. We observed a morning meeting and reviewed 5 daily site meeting minutes.

The teams had effective working relationships, including good handovers, with other relevant teams within the organisation and we reviewed minutes from monthly patient safety meetings and monthly quality and governance reports.

The teams had effective working relationships with teams outside the organisation, for example, local authority safeguarding, social services, GPs and commissioners, who told us the hospital “proactively invite community stakeholders to all relevant meetings and share clinical documentation. They support inpatient visits and are transparent and open as a service”.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

The hospital supported patients with multiple complex conditions and diagnoses. Some of these included autism spectrum disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, avoidant restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID), disordered eating and pervasive arousal withdrawal syndrome (PAWS). Patients presented with symptoms including low mood, severe anxiety, partial or complete refusal to eat, move and talk and social withdrawal. 

The hospital recognised the importance of individual patient timetables which were tailored to their health and wellbeing and individual or ward activities helped promote a healthy lifestyle for patients. This included individual motivation to express themselves through music, personal appearance, spiritually or culturally. A beautician attended the hospital monthly, and the hospital arranged other regular ward activities such as animal therapy to increase social interactions. During our inspection we attended a session which brought patients together to a communal area to pet and hold a variety of animals. We observed positive interactions with both staff and patients during this time. 

Patients were registered with a local GP and able to access regular dentist and optician appointments. 

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Staff used recognised rating scales to assess and record severity and outcomes, for example, Health of the Nation Outcome Scales. The hospital completed routine outcome monitoring which included the international trauma questionnaire (ITQ), DIALOG, a set of 11 questions where service users are asked to rate their satisfaction and needs for care across different parts of their life and treatment and goal-based outcomes. Staff and relatives spoke with us about positive outcomes for patients in terms of successful reduction in restrictions, for example staffing levels had been reduced for three patients since admission, incidents had reduced and use of section 17 leave enabled patients access to the community.

Staff used technology to support patients effectively, for example, for prompt access to blood test results, using tablets to support communication and online access to self-help tools.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centered care and treatment.

Staff took all practical steps to enable patients to make their own decisions.

For patients who might have impaired mental capacity, staff assessed and recorded capacity to consent appropriately. Our review of care records also showed that detailed capacity assessments were undertaken and advocates we spoke with told us that they were invited to relevant meetings.

They did this on a decision-specific basis with regard to significant decisions.

When patients lacked capacity, staff made decisions in their best interests, recognising the importance of the person’s wishes, feelings, culture and history.