You are here


Other CQC inspections of services

Community & mental health inspection reports for Warneford Hospital can be found at Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust.

During a check to make sure that the improvements required had been made

During our inspection in November 2012 we noted several potential risks in the bathrooms. These risks were in relation to protecting people from potentially harming themselves. Staff told us that the Trust knew about these risks but there was no current plan to make changes to reduce this risk.

We also saw that some bathrooms and toilets had glass mirrors fixed to the wall. There was a potential risk that this glass could be broken and subsequently used by somebody to self-harm. Staff told us that the Trust was aware of this risk but no action had been taken.

The provider has now completed the works to include a new bath with shower facilities, a new shower and toilet. We have seen documentary evidence that this work has been completed.

Inspection carried out on 21 November 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

We carried out this review in response to concerns raised through our website in respect of staff attitudes.

We found that in general staff respected people�s rights, involved them in their care where possible and were thoughtful about the care provided. Staff we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of people's needs and the ethical issues involved in treating people who were detained. There was a programme of activities that took place daily which people could choose to participate in.

The ward was very clean. Information was displayed at several points around the ward to inform people about a range of topics. Meetings were held with people three times a week to discuss how the ward operated. However, one person was unsure how decisions about their future treatment would be made and communicated. Complaints were recorded and followed up.

Some of the bathrooms were potentially unsafe for people at risk of self harm. The trust had identified but not addressed these issues. Additionally, the garden area was not always accessible and people were restricted to smoking every two hours.

Staff felt supported but there was a lack of formal structured supervision to ensure that staff had time for reflection on their practise and to explore areas for professional development.