Norfolk and Suffolk 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

Responsive
Responsive Rating: Good
This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.
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.

Person-centred Care
We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.
Staff regularly met with patients in multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meetings to discuss their care and treatment. These discussions took place daily and ward rounds were completed every 2 weeks.
Staff monitored patients’ conditions and discussed any changes at handover meetings.
Staff supported patients to develop their own personalised activity planner which was based around identified rehabilitation goals.
 

Care provision, Integration and continuity
We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.
Staff supported patients to maintain contact with their families and friends, this included patients having the use of mobile phones. Family members were invited to join MDT meetings.
Staff worked closely with community teams when planning discharges from the service, this included mental health care co-ordinators and social workers.
When appropriate, staff ensured patients had access to education and work opportunities. One patient told us they were looking forward to a woodworking course he had enrolled in with support from staff.
 

Providing information
We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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 submitted notifications to the Care Quality Commission in accordance with the requirements of their registration. The service submitted safeguarding referrals to the local authority.
The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard. We saw various easy read documents that could be provided to patients.
Staff ensured patients could obtain information on their rights and how to complain.
 

Listening to and involving people
We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.
Patients, relatives and carers knew how to complain or raise concerns. Information about how to make a complaint and how to raise concerns with the Care Quality Commission was available on noticeboards throughout the ward.
Staff knew how to acknowledge complaints and tried to swiftly resolve them with patients. In the last 12 months, managers received no complaints.
In the past 12 months the ward received 1 documented compliment from a family member regarding the positive care their loved one had received.
 

Equity in access
We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients, we saw an example of a patient being supported with their individual needs in relation to an appropriate bed space being allocated to support them.
There was adequate medical cover, and the general hospital was located nearby meaning staff could get prompt assistance in a medical emergency.
Staff planned for patients’ discharge, including liaison with partners to arrange accommodation. Care plans identified discharge planning was in place from admission and regularly updated.
In the last 12 months, there were 4 delayed discharges from the ward, this was due to the individual needs of the patient, or lack of appropriate settings to move the patient to.
 

Equity in experiences and outcomes
We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment 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.
At the time of inspection, 100% of staff had completed training in Equality and Diversity.
 

Planning for the future
We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.
Staff created personalised care plans to account for the patients’ needs, wishes and feelings. This was discussed with the patient, and their family members, and there was a record of this.
Staff ensured that discharges from the service were considered, well planned and included ongoing support in the community, including input from the patient.
Patients told us they were supported to make decisions about their care, treatment and future.
Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs.