• Mental Health
  • Independent mental health service

Magna House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Main Road, Anwick, Sleaford, Lincolnshire, NG34 9SJ (01526) 809771

Provided and run by:
Enbridge Healthcare Limited

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 27 June 2022

Magna House is a 29-bed independent hospital in Lincolnshire, providing care, treatment and rehabilitation services to people who are experiencing mental health issues. It registered with the Care Quality Commission in August 2020 for the following regulated activities:

  • Assessment or medical treatment for persons detained under the Mental Health Act 1983.
  • Treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

The hospital comprises of four cottages, Aspen – seven female beds; Beech one – five male beds, Beech central – three male beds, and Beech two – three female beds. All the bedrooms in the cottages are ensuite and located on the ground floor. There is also an eleven bedded male assessment ward with ensuite bedrooms, over two floors, in a separate building known as Redwood ward.

Magna House has a registered manager. It was first inspected in June 2021, when only the cottages were open and in use, and was rated as good overall with requires improvement for safe. In July 2021 the CQC visited the hospital to review the management of a serious incident and became aware the provider had opened Redwood Ward which was not in use on initial registration. An urgent, unannounced and focussed inspection of this ward was undertaken in July 2021.

Following the July 2021 inspection, and in respect of Redwood ward, the provider was found to be in breach of the Health and Social Care Act (regulated activities) Regulations 2014. Regulation 12 - safe care and treatment and Regulation 15 – premises and equipment. We served a notice of decision imposing conditions on the provider, including that they immediately move patients from Redwood ward and do not admit any further patients without CQC written approval. The provider actioned this request and submitted an action plan to address the issues we found and agreed to not admit any new patents to Redwood ward until they had met the requirements of the conditions.

In February 2022, the provider told CQC they had completed all the required works and formally asked if the conditions on their registration could be removed.

This unannounced and focussed inspection of Redwood ward, which only focussed on the requirements of the notice of decision, took place in May 2022. Due to limited scope of the inspection we did not re-rate the service on this occasion.

What people who use the service say

Redwood ward was not open to patients at the time of inspection. Therefore, there were no patients on the ward for us to speak with.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 27 June 2022

Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it. Mandatory training compliance was 92%, which included safeguarding, positive behaviour support and food safety.

The service had enough nursing and support staff to keep patients safe. The service had reducing vacancy rates. There were no qualified nursing vacancies and four healthcare support worker vacancies. There was an active ongoing recruitment campaign in place. Levels of sickness were low at 2%.

Patient care plans and risk assessments were comprehensive, and staff could access them easily. When patients have section 17 leave within a specific geographical area such as a 10-mile radius of the hospital, a map is downloaded and placed in the patients clinical notes alongside the S17 form to ensure they are fully informed of the parameters of their leave.

The ward teams included the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of patients on the wards. Managers made sure they had staff with the range of skills needed to provide high quality care. Managers supported staff with appraisals, supervision and opportunities to update and further develop their skills. Staff appraisal rates were 100% and clinical supervision rates were 84%. Managers provided an induction programme for new staff and mentoring opportunities for all new starters for the first six months of their employment.

We spoke with six patients and four carers during the inspection, their feedback was overwhelmingly positive, two patients said that Magna House was the best hospital they had ever been admitted to. They said the staff were very kind and took them out in the hospital car to go shopping and on trips.

Staff introduced patients to the ward and the services as part of their admission and gave them a comprehensive welcome pack, which was available in a variety of formats where appropriate. Staff involved patients in decisions about the service, when appropriate for example suggestions on the décor and menu choice. Staff supported patients to make decisions on their care for example supporting them to cater for themselves and devise individualised therapeutic programmes.

Staff told us they felt respected, supported and valued. They said the provider promoted equality and diversity in daily work and provided opportunities for development and career progression and they felt proud to work at Magna House. They could raise any concerns without fear and said that they were actively to speak up if they felt they need to raise an issue.

However:

Not all ward areas were clean, we saw evidence of high and low-level dust and one bedroom was visibly dirty and had a distinctive odour of urine. The dining room had stained walls and we saw ant activity within patient areas. We brought this to the attention of the hospital managers, and it was rectified immediately.

Staff could not observe patients in all parts of the wards. Not all bedroom doors had vision panels, nine out of the 11 bedrooms we looked at had “peepholes” in situ, both inspectors attempted to look through the peepholes but were unable to see into the patient bedrooms.

Four out of the seven care records we looked at did not contain a completed Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan.

Patients did not have access information about independent mental health advocacy.

Long stay or rehabilitation mental health wards for working age adults

Good

Updated 2 August 2021

Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it. Mandatory training compliance was 92%, which included safeguarding, positive behaviour support and food safety.

The service had enough nursing and support staff to keep patients safe. The service had reducing vacancy rates. There were no qualified nursing vacancies and four healthcare support worker vacancies. There was an active ongoing recruitment campaign in place. Levels of sickness were low at 2%.

Patient care plans and risk assessments were comprehensive, and staff could access them easily. When patients have section 17 leave within a specific geographical area such as a 10-mile radius of the hospital, a map is downloaded and placed in the patients clinical notes alongside the S17 form to ensure they are fully informed of the parameters of their leave.

The ward teams included the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of patients on the wards. Managers made sure they had staff with the range of skills needed to provide high quality care. Managers supported staff with appraisals, supervision and opportunities to update and further develop their skills. Staff appraisal rates were 100% and clinical supervision rates were 84%. Managers provided an induction programme for new staff and mentoring opportunities for all new starters for the first six months of their employment.

We spoke with six patients and four carers during the inspection, their feedback was overwhelmingly positive, two patients said that Magna House was the best hospital they had ever been admitted to. They said the staff were very kind and took them out in the hospital car to go shopping and on trips.

Staff introduced patients to the ward and the services as part of their admission and gave them a comprehensive welcome pack, which was available in a variety of formats where appropriate. Staff involved patients in decisions about the service, when appropriate for example suggestions on the décor and menu choice. Staff supported patients to make decisions on their care for example supporting them to cater for themselves and devise individualised therapeutic programmes.

Staff told us they felt respected, supported and valued. They said the provider promoted equality and diversity in daily work and provided opportunities for development and career progression and they felt proud to work at Magna House. They could raise any concerns without fear and said that they were actively to speak up if they felt they need to raise an issue.

However:

Not all ward areas were clean, we saw evidence of high and low-level dust and one bedroom was visibly dirty and had a distinctive odour of urine. The dining room had stained walls and we saw ant activity within patient areas. We brought this to the attention of the hospital managers, and it was rectified immediately.

Staff could not observe patients in all parts of the wards. Not all bedroom doors had vision panels, nine out of the 11 bedrooms we looked at had “peepholes” in situ, both inspectors attempted to look through the peepholes but were unable to see into the patient bedrooms.

Four out of the seven care records we looked at did not contain a completed Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan.

Patients did not have access information about independent mental health advocacy.