Norfolk and Suffolk 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

Caring
Caring Rating: Good
This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.
At our last assessment we did not rate this key question. At this assessment the rating was Good.
 

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.

Kindness, compassion and dignity
We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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 patients showed they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it.
Staff directed patients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services. One patient was initially supported by staff to attend medical appointments and was then able to attend independently.
Patients told us staff were very nice, helpful and supportive.
Staff gave examples of personalised care for individual patients, and it was clear they knew their patients well.
Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of the consequences.
A family member told us they felt their loved one was safe, well looked after and staff were lovely to them when they visited.
The service had launched a quality improvement project to strengthen cultural understanding on the ward. This focussed on educating staff and patients on different cultures to create a safer and more therapeutic environment.
There was always a multi faith room available, with religious books for private prayer, reflection or spiritual practice.
 

Treating people as individuals
We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.
Staff ensured easy read documents were available across the service to make written communication more accessible and understandable.
Patients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances. Staff supported patients to use their individual weekly food budget to meet their preferences.
The service was able to demonstrate considerations and actions taken to ensure person centred care was provided to patients with protected characteristics. This included trained ‘green light champions’ who promoted best practice for supporting individuals with autism and learning disabilities.
 

Independence, choice and control
We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.
Staff made sure patients could access information on their rights and how to complain. Up to date information about the Mental Health Act, advocacy, the Care Quality Commission and making complaints was displayed on notice boards on the ward.
Patients could provide feedback to staff during daily community meetings; and privately with staff in their 1:1 sessions.
Patients could make phone calls in private. Staff did not restrict patients access to their mobile telephones or devices.
 

Responding to people’s immediate needs
We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.
Patients were involved in their care plans and risk assessments, they felt listened to and their voice was heard in MDT meetings. Patients and their carers attended ward rounds, and felt they were involved in decisions about care, treatment and discharge.
Staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when patients became distressed.
Staff made sure patients could access advocacy services. Information on how to contact the independent mental health advocacy service was displayed on a notice board.
Staff did not always identify and plan for changing risks, 1 care plan did not have a thorough crisis plan in place for when a patient was on unescorted leave.
 

Workforce wellbeing and enablement
We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centered care.
Staff said the leadership team were approachable, supportive and engaged with staff on the ward. Staff and managers said they found senior managers at the hospital to be supportive.
The trust recognised staff success and had a recognition scheme. Staff received a nomination, and came runners up, for their work relating to successful discharge of long-term patients who were now living successfully in the community, amongst other successes.