Cambridge Park - Community Inpatient Unit (CIU)

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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they worked in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. The provider supported personalised care and treatment. Staff interacted positively with people, involving them in decisions and asking for feedback about their care and experience. A relative told us, “On my birthday [relative] was very sad as they were not at home. The staff organised a small party and said I could bring in their favourite fish and chips”.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. The service demonstrated a commitment to joined-up care. Inspectors observed electronic displays explaining the rehabilitation journey, and records showed regular patient and family forums where rehabilitation, therapy, activities and goals were discussed. These arrangements supported involvement, communication and coordinated care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The provider had systems to provide information about their care and support. Service information booklets were available in bedrooms, and electronic information displays about the rehabilitation journey were in the reception area. A relative told us, “I had a call asking me to come and see a staff member. They explained so well and spoke to me not at me and I now know more about [Name’s] condition than anyone else has ever explained”.

The provider 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. People and families had opportunities to share their views. There was a weekly patient and family forum where feedback from people was discussed. Complaints were logged and dealt with according to the providers policies. A relative also spoke positively about the staff, saying they went “above and beyond to support [Name]”. A person told us, “Food is good, I asked for smaller portions and they listened”.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The service did not feel particularly homely. However, as people usually stayed for short periods, the environment was primarily focused on supporting their care, rehabilitation, and recovery. Staff worked hard to ensure people could easily access the care and support they needed.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. A family member described the service as “Outstanding”, and said staff had learned to use facial expressions to understand their relative’s wishes after a stroke had affected their ability to communicate verbally. A person told us, “I could not use the call bell as it was a little stiff, so staff found another easy to use one for me”.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. We saw evidence of discussion of care, therapy sessions and goals at the weekly patient and family forum, and the service displayed information about the rehabilitation journey. However, how people were supported to plan for longer-term outcomes was not recorded, so assurance in this area was limited.