Becton Centre for Children and Young People

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness. They respected patients’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of patients and supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff involved patients in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

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.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We spoke with 7 carers as part of this assessment, all of them told us that the staff were caring and respectful of their relatives.

We observed staff interactions with patients; they were responsive and respectful. We spoke with 19 staff members; they had a good knowledge and understood the individual needs of patients. Staff were compassionate and caring about the patients they cared for.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The service had access to interpreters and language line. The speech and language team also worked with patients to develop communication cards and staff were trained in Makaton.

Patients had access to a choice of food to meet dietary requirements. The service had access to dieticians, staff told us that the catering department were able to make adjustments for patients when needed.

The service had an onsite multifaith room and Chaplaincy services.

All staff we spoke to were knowledgeable about the individual needs and preferences of the patients they cared for.

Staff and patient interactions and interventions we observed demonstrated that staff understood and respected the individual needs of each patient. Multidisciplinary patient reviews we observed were person centred and holistic.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The patients had information available to them about advocacy services and how to contact them.

Patients were invited to multidisciplinary meetings about their care and treatment, if the patient did not wish to attend, they could ask questions in advance which would be reviewed in the meeting. We observed the inclusion of patients and their carers within the multidisciplinary meetings.

Patients were supported to maintain relationships, this was seen as key by the staff at the service as the patients needed to return home. The service provided family therapy and support for carers.

Staff were able to help facilitate patient involvement and choice by providing information in different formats, as appropriate, including translation services, easy read and large print.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff we spoke with understood the individual risks for each patient and the mitigations taken to reduce risk to the patient.

The service had adopted the Non-Violent Resistance (NVR) model of care, this was used throughout care planning and multidisciplinary team meetings. This model of care uses de-escalation techniques reducing the need for physical interactions when patients’ behaviour became heightened. Some patients required a level of physical restraint when receiving nasogastric feeds, this was planned and discussed with the patient in advance.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

In general, staff we spoke with did feel respected and valued by the organisation. However, there had been a recent staffing changes across the lodges and the staff felt this had impacted on morale.

We received mixed feedback from staff about working for their team. There had been a very recent change in management which had led to a lot of changes in the teams in terms of management and ways of working. Some staff had found these changes positive but others found it was having an impact on established teams.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service.

Staff involved in the recent inquest for the service spoke highly of the support they received from their colleagues and the trust.