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 previous 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.

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

We spoke with 19 patients across the 4 wards during our visit and we also utilised the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) to observe how staff were interacting with patients and delivering care and treatment on the wards. The SOFI is a framework for directly observing and reporting on the quality of care experienced by people who may not be able to describe this themselves.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed that they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Our observations of care evidenced staff interacted well with patients, appeared to have a good rapport and made time to listen to people when they were spoken to.

Staff directed patients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services, for example where they might need support from an advocate or where they might need additional support to move back into their own homes.

Patients said staff treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them. They said they were kind, friendly and were there when they were needed. This included at nighttime. However, a small number of patients said the response at night was sometimes slower. Patients said that they felt safe on the wards.

Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs.

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.

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.

The service made adjustments for disabled patients, for example, by ensuring disabled people’s access to premises and by meeting patients’ specific communication needs. Although 3 wards were on upper floors, there were lifts for those with mobility problems. There was a range of moving and handling equipment and walking aids available on each ward. Managers advised that any specific adaptations or adjustments identified for patients would be provided as necessary.

Staff ensured patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ right and how to complain. The information provided was in a form accessible to the patient group. Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by patients.

Managers ensured staff and patients had easy access to interpreters and or signers, where they were required.

Patients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances.

Staff ensured that patients 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.

Patients told us they felt listened to by staff about any concerns that they had and felt supported in being listened to about their care and decisions. Staff informed patients about their care and treatment including considerations and planning about potential discharge from the ward.

Patients were informed of their rights under the Mental Health Act.

Patients could participate in community meetings. Patients said the service would listen and make changes if they raised any concerns, for example changes had been made to the menu as a result of feedback gathered from patients.

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 were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, such as falls or pressure ulcers and care planned for these accordingly. Although there were a high number of falls on these wards, it was clear that staff were assessing these risks and taking action to decrease these risks. For example, staff had made changes to the way observations were carried out on the wards to ensure that they could visibly observe areas where more falls occurred. Staff were also taking part in a trust wide falls and pressure ulcer improvement forum, which was supporting the process of learning and developing practice.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, patients. Where necessary levels of observation were changed to ensure a least restrictive approach was always taken and staff ensured that changes were shared at regular handover meetings.

Staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when patients’ behaviours became heightened, they could give a good explanation of the steps they would take to ensure a least restrictive approach was always taken.

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

Staff told us they felt respected, supported and valued. They said they were well supported by their colleagues and by their managers. Staff felt positive and proud about working for the provider and their team.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service.

The service’s staff sickness and absence were above the national average. Managers were able to give explanations as to why sickness levels were higher, for example where a small number of staff had been off for long periods.

Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported.