You are here

Mental Health Unit, Lincoln County Hospital Site

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 24 July 2012
Date of Publication: 15 August 2012
Inspection Report published 15 August 2012 PDF

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

How this check was done

Our judgement

The provider was meeting this standard.

In general patients received the care and support they wanted and needed, by way of clear assessment and care planning, and a knowledgeable staff team.

User experience

We spoke to a number of patients within both units. They made comments such as “Everything is really good here”, “Really good activity co-ordinator”, “This lot here (staff) are great, those out there (community) don’t communicate with me properly” and “I get involved with care planning with staff.”

A patient in Francis Willis Unit told us that they were not getting an activity session that had been planned for them. The manager took immediate action to rectify this.

Other evidence

We looked at a range of patient records across both units. There were comprehensive admission assessments record, which covered needs such as moving and handling, culture, nutrition and discharge requirements. The records showed that the assessments were updated when needs changed.

Care plans were in place for things like medication, physical health, orientation to the units, managing finances and anxiety management. We saw that care plans had been regularly reviewed with patients in Francis Willis Unit. However a few plans in Peter Hodgkinson Centre needed to be reviewed. The manager told us that these plans were being reviewed with patients during our visit. A patient confirmed this had been done later in the day.

Care planning followed a standard format in both units, and core care plans were being used. However these had been personalised and were in line with assessment information.

Where patients required extra services we saw that staff had made appropriate referrals. For example, we saw referral records to services such as housing, alcohol and drug support, and advocacy. There were also treatment and management plans in place from other professionals such as Occupational Therapists and Psychologists.

Daily records showed that patients were offered individual sessions with staff to discuss their progress. We knew that these sessions were usually provided on a daily basis. Audit outcomes showed that, for example on one ward in Peter Hodgkinson Centre they fulfilled the targets for these sessions 90% of the time.

Since we last visited the trust they had employed activity co-ordinators in both units. We saw general and personalised activity plans in both units, and saw patients taking part in activities in and outside of the units. For example, some patients were taking part in a golf experience and some went out on a countryside walk. Other patients were doing art and crafts activities. Patients activity preferences were recorded in their care files.

We saw staff providing care and treatment in line with patients care plans, for example offering anxiety management sessions. We also saw staff responding quickly to needs highlighted by patients, for example making referrals to opticians and chiropodists. In both units staff demonstrated a clear understanding of individual needs, and how to address them effectively.