Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

We rated caring as good.

At this assessment the rating was good. Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness. They respected patients’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of patients and supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff involved patients in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with young people showed that they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing them with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. We carried out 3 observations using the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) tool, which is an observational tool used to capture the experiences of service users who may not be able to express this for themselves. We saw staff engaging with young people in crafts, pet therapy and talking to young people about their interests. We observed that staff at Red Kite View appeared busier and did not have as much time to engage with young people as their peers at Mill Lodge. However, we did observe one consultant having a session with a young person at Red Kite View while playing football with them.

Staff supported young people to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Young people told us they had had discussions about their care and treatment. When we reviewed care plans, we found care plan documentation included young people’s views and there was documentation that young people had been offered a copy of their care plans.

The trust used a methodology to collect feedback from young people and carers called Re-quest. Only 16 carers and 7 young people had completed the survey in 12 months, but they reflected they had been treated well by the service.

There was also a parent peer support group for carers of young people at Red Kite View.

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of the consequences.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients.

We were concerned about the potential privacy and dignity of young people when being moved to seclusion as due to the location there was potential for young people to be observed moving through a corridor from a visitor waiting area. The trust acknowledged our concerns and were making plans to address them. We were not aware of any impact of these concerns and had not been made aware of any incidents where privacy and dignity had been impacted.

The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Both Mill Lodge and Red Kite View were suitable for disabled young people, for example the premises were accessible to those with a physical disability. Support for young people with communication needs varied. Some young people had communication plans in place which had been completed by speech and language therapists, and some young people were using specific communication tools to help them communicate.

Staff ensured that young people could obtain information on treatments, local services, young peoples’ rights, how to complain and so on.

The information provided was in a form accessible to the patient group, for example, easy-read information was available. Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by young people, and we saw an example of a young person in possession of a translated care plan. Managers ensured that staff and young people had easy access to interpreters and/or signers.

Young people had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances. For example, halal, kosher and gluten free menus were available, and we saw carers bring in meals for the young people.

Staff ensured that young people had access to appropriate spiritual support.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The young people we spoke with generally felt informed about their care and treatment, and they could describe what information they had received about their medication and told us that they were involved in reviews about their care and treatment.

Carers and young people reported that, they were involved in meetings about their care.

The wards held regular community meetings and young people reported that they could raise issues during these meetings and received feedback. Themes discussed and actions taken in the last three meeting included ward preparations for Halloween, a planned visit by donkeys and changes to the sandwiches because of new food safety guidelines.

We observed positive interactions between staff and young people. We saw several family members and carers visiting and while some told us they had made complaints in the past, those that had complained felt the service listened to their concerns and responded appropriately. They all now felt the service was improving and they had noticed fewer temporary staff.

Blanket restrictions in place were reviewed regularly to ensure they were in line with least restrictive practice. We saw that blanket restrictions were removed when risks were no longer present or had been mitigated.

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff we spoke with could explain any specific risk issues relevant to each young person, such as self-harm. They monitored physical health concerns and acted where needed.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, young people. Staff attended handovers at the beginning and end of every shift and concerns about young people were discussed and any necessary actions were recorded.

Staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when young peoples’ behaviours became heightened. Staff we spoke with knew young people well and understood potential triggers and how to de-escalate concerns.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff felt respected, supported, and valued. They felt positive and proud about working for the trust and their team. They had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service including confidential counselling and were referred with their consent when a need was identified.

The provider recognised staff success within the service, for example, through staff excellence awards for staff who had done something particularly well. Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported.