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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. 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.

Quality Statement Score: 3

Staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and we respect their privacy and dignity. We treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

All rooms had privacy blinds that could be operated by patients from within their room.

Patients and carers who spoke with us generally said staff were kind, polite, respectful and supportive towards them. They said staff took time to listen to them and understood their needs.

One carer fed back that they felt some staff could be very rude.

Staff who spoke with us were aware of the needs of their patients. They told us that they worked hard to build therapeutic relationships with their patients and worked collaboratively to do so. Managers told us that the recent increase in baseline staffing numbers enabled staff to spend more therapeutic time with patients.

Care plans showed that staff had gained consent for information to be shared and included patients’ wishes and likes or dislikes.

Staff offered patients a private space to talk when required. Throughout our inspection, we saw staff interacting with patients in a kind and supportive way.

Staff we spoke with understood and respected the personal, cultural, social and religious needs of patients and how they may relate to care needs. They could identify patients with specific dietary requirements and gave examples of how they had supported patients to access external religious support.

Quality Statement Score: 3

Staff treated people as individuals and made sure their care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences, taking account of their strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Some patients told us that they had copies of their care plans, whereas others said they had not been offered these.

Interpreters were available if patients needed one. There were multi-faith rooms available to all patients.

The kitchen offered a menu that catered for cultural needs, such as a Halal menu. Staff also supported carers and families to bring in food at the request of patients.

Patients said staff were respectful and knew about their individual needs. We observed staff giving reassurance to patients when they needed it. Staff were caring and supportive to patients. Interactions we observed showed that staff knew each patient well and understood their needs.

The service made adjustments for disabled patients – for example, by ensuring disabled people’s access to premises and by meeting patients’ specific communication needs.

Doors were wide enough to accommodate wheelchairs, and there were lifts for patients with mobility needs. Staff gave examples of when they had arranged for walking aids and commodes for patients from the occupational therapy team

Consent to share information was clearly documented in patients’ records. The multidisciplinary team invited family and carers, where consent had been given, to attend meetings so information sharing could be undertaken.

Quality Statement Score: 3

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

Patients also told us that staff were informative, and that they felt comfortable with their care and treatment.

Staff arranged face to face meetings to aid with communication for patients whose first language was not English. Easy-read information was available for those patients who needed this and there were information leaflets in a range of different languages.

Staff described how they tried to promote patients’ choice and control wherever possible, for example regarding access to leave. Staff described how they accommodated patients and carers wishes and offered flexible visiting times.

The service had carer meetings which gave carers the opportunity to provide feedback to staff about what they needed or what they would benefit from.

Quality Statement Score: 3

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 told us that they would use verbal de-escalation in any first instance to avoid hands-on restraint, and this would often be used to good effect.

Staff told us they carried personal alarms and would use these to request urgent support from colleagues to aid a patient who needed urgent help.

The seclusion room was safe and offered appropriate viewing areas whilst offering dignity and privacy for the user. The area also offered an outside space for patients spending time in the seclusion area.

There were observation processes and guidance in place on all wards. We saw staff members undertaking observation checks accordingly on each of the wards that we visited.

There were a restraint policy and process in place on all wards. There was a process to follow when a patient required the use of seclusion. We looked at 4 seclusion records and found staff had completed appropriate nursing and medical reviews in line with the Mental Health Act Code of Practice.

Whilst care plans did not always contain evidence of patient involvement, staff we spoke with understood the patient group including individual risks, and how they needed to engage with them. We observed staff being alert to people's needs and responded promptly and appropriately to these.

Quality Statement Score: 3

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

Staff generally told us that they felt listened to and supported by their managers and senior managers to undertake their roles. Some staff fed back that they were extremely busy.

The service had introduced a wellbeing assessment which was used to measure staff’s physical and mental health needs as well as their overall wellbeing. Managers told us they aimed for staff to complete these annually and said they helped ensure they could put appropriate steps in place to support each staff member.

Staff had access to regular management support and clinical supervision. Clinical supervision comprised one hour a minimum of 6 times per year, in addition to monthly management supervision.. Supervision included a discussion about staff wellbeing. The psychology team ran a weekly reflective practice forum which was available to all staff. Restorative clinical supervision was also available to all staff.

Staff had access to occupational health and an employee assistance programme.

Managers made sure staff attended team meetings or had access to full notes when they could not attend. Team meetings took place weekly on each ward, with managers sharing minutes with all staff electronically.

Managers identified any training needs their staff had and gave them the time and opportunity to develop their skills and knowledge. For example, some band 5 staff had been offered line management opportunities or had taken on lead roles such as physical health champion. Other staff had been involved in care plan and risk assessment audits.

There were a range of non-mandatory training courses and electronic learning available to staff who wanted to develop their skills or had an interest in a specific area. The trust’s intranet had a learning and development page which provided information on courses and learning available. Some staff had completed phlebotomy training, pressure ulcer training, and additional autism awareness training.

Managers completed de-briefs and contacted individual staff members following incidents to check whether they needed any support. In addition, all staff could access the trust's Critical Incident Staff Support Pathway (CrISSP) for post- incident support.

The trust recognised staff success within the service. One manager described how team meetings contained a ‘thanks and positivity’ agenda item. Some staff fed back that senior leaders were good at acknowledging the work of staff. There was a ‘team of the month’ where a team was given a cash prize which they could use to purchase items or arrange an away day. Staff also had access to a wellbeing space at the Becklin Centre.

Managers provided training and gave information to staff to protect their safety. They received breakaway and conflict management training and were provided with peoples’ risk information, for example when escorting them on leave. All staff carried fob alarms.