HMP Erlestoke

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We assessed 1 quality statements for this section. We found they were now compliant with relevant regulation.

Find out what we look at when we assess this area in our information about our new Single assessment framework.

The judgement for Shared direction and culture is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Freedom to speak up is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

At the last inspection we found that clinical incidents were not reviewed effectively, and the management of risk was not robust.

Patient queries and complaints were not managed confidentially, and patients did not know how to complain.

At this inspection we found:

The health provider had taken action to strengthen its clinical governance processes and use of data.

Local and strategic governance meetings were reviewed to improve the scrutiny and oversight of the performance and delivery of the service. Work had been undertaken by the health team based at HMP Erlestoke supported by the wider organisation, health commissioners and the prison.

The local risk register, although previously reviewed on a regular basis had not accurately captured all risks. This had been addressed, and senior staff had an increased understanding of the importance of utilising the risk register more appropriately. The monthly risk register meetings were more focused, and dynamic reviews resulted in a more accurate risk register than before.

The management of clinical incidents was now more robust with better analysis and understanding of data and any emerging trends. Lessons learnt were shared with staff and informed service improvement. At the last inspection there were 166 clinical incidents awaiting review, dating back several months which were now cleared. Clinical incidents were now reviewed twice a week, and investigations were conducted in line with policy.

Progress had been made with the management of patient complaints with a more coordinated approach than before. The tracking of complaints had improved, and responses were quality assured. Staff had received additional training to understand factors affecting complaints and how to formulate appropriate responses. The ones we sampled had been responded to in a timely way, polite and addressed the concerns raised. Specific health query and complaint forms with an attached envelope were now in place which was positive. However, they were not readily accessible on all the wings and many prisoners were still unaware of how to raise a healthcare complaint.

Patients now received an acknowledgment letter, a holding letter if the complaint required further time to investigate as well as a final response. Complaints were now a standing item in the daily handover.

The judgement for Partnerships and communities is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Learning, improvement and innovation is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.