You are here

Archived: Stoddart House

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 18 November 2014
Date of Publication: 9 January 2015
Inspection Report published 09 January 2015 PDF | 85.57 KB

Overview

Inspection carried out on 18 November 2014

During a routine inspection

Due to medical conditions some patients were not able to describe their experiences in detail but two patients said they were appropriately cared for. We spoke with seven ward staff, the pharmacist, four doctors and the Modern Matron. The inspection was carried out by two inspectors, a Mental Health Act reviewer, a pharmacy inspector and a physician. We considered all the evidence we gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask:

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

We saw people were being cared for in an environment which was clean. Risk assessments were in place. For health, safety and security reasons, visitors were asked to sign in and out of the unit. We heard when there were not enough staff to meet patients’ needs, regular bank staff who were familiar with the ward were used.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) are part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The MCA is designed to protect people who lack the ability to make decisions for themselves due to mental capacity difficulties. The aim is to make sure people in hospitals and care homes are looked after in a way which does not restrict their freedom inappropriately.

Is the service effective?

People’s needs were assessed and their relatives were involved in planning and reviewing their care. Where people were detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA) their capacity to understand their treatment was assessed.

Is the service caring?

We saw that patients’ distress levels were responded to calmly and staff supported people with dignity when they were distressed.

Where patients needed to be closely monitored, staff engaged with them in activities that had been identified as being beneficial within their care plan.

Is the service responsive?

The records we saw confirmed care and support had been provided in accordance with people’s preferences and diverse needs.

Is the service well-led?

We saw quality assurance processes were in place to make sure the provider monitored the care provided and made improvements where necessary.