Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. At our previous assessment we rated this key question as good.

At this assessment, the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Patients described feeling involved in their care and treatment. Care plans were written in a way that people could understand, and they correlated with people’s assessed needs. Patients were involved in decision making about the ward through regular community meetings.

Patients stated that staff helped them with understanding aspects of their care plan and that staff supported them in line with their care plans.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Patients were involved in and supported to access activities in the community, where this was possible. Patients said the occupational therapy team supported them with this. Patients also said that staff supported them to build and maintain daily living skills, so they were able to either move back into their own homes or on to a more permanent and less restrictive service.

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with their families and carers. Although there were set visiting times to protect mealtimes, patients and carers and families told us that staff always tried to apply a flexible approach so families and carers could visit whenever it was convenient for them. During our visit we saw lots of families and carers visiting the service and spending time with their loved ones.

Staff supported patients to access their chosen place of worship within the community or arrangements could be made for religious representatives to visit the service where this was requested.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed. The service had relevant systems and process to record and manage this information.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, how to complain and so on. The information provided was in a form accessible to the patient group. Patients were supported by staff in understanding their care and treatment. This included helping them with understanding aspects of their care plan and supporting them in line with their assessed needs.

Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by patients.

Staff ensured carers, families and commissioners were regularly updated about the patient’s progress.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The total number of complaints in 12 months prior to the assessment for this service was 4. Of these, 1 was partially upheld, 1 was not upheld and 2 were still being investigated. There were no identified themes or trends across the complaints.

There were no complaints referred to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman in the 12 months prior to our assessment.

Patients knew how to complain or raise concerns. When patients complained or raised concerns, they received feedback. Patients told us staff acted if they raised any concerns or complaints.

Patients could give feedback in relation to the ward through various methods such as community meetings, directly to staff or through the patient forum.

Staff protected patients who raised concerns or complaints from discrimination and harassment. Staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately. Staff received feedback on the outcome of investigation of complaints and acted on the findings.

The service made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff ensured the needs of patients with mobility issues were met, for example, wheelchair users were placed in bedrooms closer to the ward’s communal areas and bathrooms. Although 3 of the 4 wards were located on upper floors, people had access to lifts and patients told us that they had not experienced any issues accessing the ground floor.

Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients, for example, people with mobility issues were provided with a variety of hoists, walking aids, shower chairs and there were at least 1 accessible and assisted baths located on each of the wards.

There was adequate medical cover day and night, a doctor could attend the ward quickly in an emergency and the hospital was within a reasonable travelling distance to the local acute hospital.

Staff planned for patients’ discharge, including good liaison with care managers and care co-ordinators. Staff had undertaken a specific project aimed at improving the quality and timeliness of discharges and this appeared to have had a positive impact. Although we were told there were a small number of delayed discharges, these were mainly because of the difficulties in finding appropriate onward placements. There was evidence of ongoing liaison and partnership work that was taking place to support this process, which we observed during meetings and saw in care records.

Staff and leaders actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was always tailored in response to this.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. Patients described they felt listened to by staff and included in decisions about their care and treatment. Patients felt confident they could raise any concerns within the service and gave examples of actions that the service had taken based on their feedback.

The provider had undertaken equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage.

All staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights.

The service supported people to plan for important life changes, so they can have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Staff supported patients to make decisions about their care and treatment and their future. Patients felt involved in decision making about their care and in relation to the ward through community meetings.

Staff created personalised care plans to account for the patient’s needs, wishes and feelings. Staff ensure all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies are involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs.

Care for people who were nearing the end of their life was managed and communicated in a sensitive and dignified way.