You are here

Archived: Slade House

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 3 March 2014
Date of Publication: 21 May 2014
Inspection Report published 21 May 2014 PDF | 88.53 KB

Overview

Inspection carried out on 3 March 2014

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

We inspected Slade House (John Sharich House) on 03 March 2014. This was a responsive inspection to check if the compliance actions and warning notices we had issued after our inspection in September 2013 had been followed up completely and appropriately. In September, Slade House comprised of two separate units; the Short Term and Assessment Team unit (known as STATT) and John Sharich House (known as JSH).

The Trust chose to stop admissions to both units following our inspection in September 2013. They were told by the Commission they could re-admit when they felt fully confident they had completed their compliance actions. They have not yet admitted anyone to either of these locations.

After the last patient on STATT moved out in December 2013, the Trust closed that unit. We were therefore only able to view care within John Sharich House on this inspection.

On our arrival, we were shown around JSH. We saw that there were five staff on duty for five patients. The staff told us that four of the five patients being cared for would be discharged soon and arrangements were being made for this. We were able to speak with some patients in John Sharich House, but one patient did not wish to speak with us. We asked them about the assessment, treatment, care and support they received. One person told us it was “okay” and said they were happy being cared for there.

Another patient told us they were not happy to have had their baths stopped. We were surprised to hear that bathing was not allowed for anyone. We asked why this was. We were told this had been a response to a death in the unit last summer when a young man had died in the bath. We asked if this decision had been made with input from all relevant professionals and from the patients it concerned. We were told it had not.

Patients told us that their consent was sought before any care or treatment was commenced. However, it had not been sought regarding the decision on bathing and one patient was able to tell us they were “upset” about this.

We spent time observing the daily work of the unit. Although we heard warm personal interactions between staff and patients, we noted little obvious therapeutic activity throughout the day. Staff stayed in the staff room for considerable lengths of time, working on administrative tasks. This surprised us, as this had been an area of rigorous discussion after the previous inspection.

We asked members of staff what the purpose of the unit was. We received a variety of answers from senior clinicians and other members of staff. We asked how treatment success or failure was measured. We were told there were no specific pathways, but that care was nevertheless tailored to the individual patient.

We discussed safeguarding training and knowledge. The staff told us they felt confident in this area.

We inspected the medicines policy and procedures and found that these were correct.

We looked at the quality monitoring checks that took place. These are used to enable senior staff to check the unit was functioning safely and well, and if it was providing good care and appropriate support. We saw that a family information group had recently started.

We examined records of people, of staff and of equipment. These were mostly satisfactory.