HMP Lowdham Grange

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

We assessed 2 quality statements for this key question. We found that treatment was tailored to meet patient need however care plans were not sufficiently personalised across all pathways. The management of complaints required improvement.

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

Patient records we reviewed showed that patients received treatment which was tailored to meet their needs, and records were generally completed to a high standard. However, we found that care planning required some improvement. Patients with long term conditions and substance misuse needs often had generic templates including standardised statements which were not personalised and did not evidence co-production with patients. Those patients with particularly complex needs did not always have a care plan completed which made it difficult to identify the patients’ specific needs for staff who did not know the patient.

The mental health team completed care plans for patients under their care. Whilst these were not always on the expected templates, they were clear and easy to locate on the electronic patient record. Those we reviewed were highly detailed with clear assessment of risk and actions for both staff and the patient.

The judgement for Care provision, Integration and continuity is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Providing Information is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The provider had identified that the management of complaints was not good enough and had an action plan in place to drive improvements. We reviewed 11 complaints and found work was required to ensure that patients understood how to complain and then received a timely and thorough investigation into their complaint.

Complaints were received from patients through confidential boxes on residential units and the Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS). We found that complaint forms were not consistently available to patients across all units, and there were delays in healthcare staff emptying complaint boxes. This meant that complaints were not always responded to in line with the trust’s 30 day policy.

Complaint responses we sampled were polite, included an apology to the patient, and most addressed all the concerns raised. However, one complaint about a staff member had been answered by a peer, which was inappropriate, and there was no system in place to quality assure complaint responses.

The provider had introduced some patient engagement measures to improve the use of patient feedback and inform service improvements. For example, a member of the team attended the prison counsel, and patient surveys had been introduced with incentives for the team receiving the most completed surveys each month.

The judgement for Equity in access is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Equity in experiences and outcomes is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Planning for the future is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.