Becton Centre for Children and Young People

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

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

Staff managed beds well. A bed was available when a patient needed one. Patients were not moved between lodges except for their benefit. Patients did not have to stay in hospital when they were well enough to leave. The design, layout, and furnishings of the lodges supported patients’ treatment, privacy and dignity. Staff supported patients with activities outside the service, such as work, education and family relationships. The service met the needs of all patients – including those with a protected characteristic. Staff helped patients with communication, advocacy and cultural and spiritual support. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the result.

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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

We reviewed 8 care records as part of this assessment and we found that patient’s opinions and choices about their care were recorded.

Staff ensured that patient’s voices were heard in the multidisciplinary meetings by asking for the patient’s questions or views before the meeting if the patient did not wish to attend. Carers were also invited to the multidisciplinary team meetings. We observed 2 of these meetings at our assessment, and the patient and carer voices were at the centre of these meetings.

Policies and procedures were in place to protect and promote equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service 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 had an onsite school for the patients. Teachers at the school attended the lodges to assess the patient’s individual educational needs. The teachers also attended lodge meetings and linked into local specialist schools when required.

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with their carers and families. Carers were encouraged to visit the lodges outside of school hours, however the staff could be flexible depending on circumstances. The service would also provide family therapy to maintain family connections.

Patients had access to an onsite multifaith room.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff tailored information to meet patient’s needs. For example, staff could provide written or visual feedback, could provide a range of information and in a range of formats if required. The service involved carers, advocates and interpreters where necessary.

Families, carers, and commissioners were invited to attend weekly multidisciplinary meetings. They were kept up to date on patients progress and given the opportunity to input into care and treatment.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service received 1 complaint in the 6 months prior to assessment, this complaint was partially upheld.

All carers we spoke with knew how to raise concerns and complaints with the service. Information was available on the lodges for patients on how to complain, they were encouraged to raise concerns in the community meetings.

Outcomes from concerns raised in community meetings were displayed on the lodges on ‘you said, we did’ boards.

Staff we spoke with know how to address concerns raised by patients and carers, while protecting them from discrimination and harassment.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff ensured that the physical needs of patients were met, for example providing a wheelchair for a patient. The service had also sourced a hospital bed for a patient who was required to rest at a 45 degree angle.

The service started planning for discharge early in the patient’s journey, they involved care-coordinators, the community child and adolescent mental health teams, family members and other relevant organisations. At the time of the assessment there were 5 patients who had been in hospital for longer than 12 weeks, none of these patients were clinically ready for discharge.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

The provider had undertaken equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage.

Staff at the service received mandatory training for equality, diversity and human rights, compliance for this at the time of the assessment was 97%.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Patient care plans were individualised and holistic, ensuring that the plans included the patient’s needs, wishes and feelings.

Discharge planning was started at admission to the service, all relevant professionals such as future placements, community child and adolescent mental health teams, care coordinators were involved as well as the patient and their carers.