Cambridgeshire and Peterborough 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 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 provider always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

The provider ensured that people using the service were supported by staff in an appropriate and supportive manner, treated them with kindness and understood their individual needs.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with people showed that they were friendly, respectful and responsive, providing people with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. We observed positive and kind interactions between staff on our visit

Staff supported people to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. They ensured they explained any medications given to people. Staff supported people to engage in meaningful activities. For example, a person who liked to cook was supported with meal and budget planning. This taught daily living skills that would be required in the community but was also therapeutic and meaningful due to his enjoyment of cooking.

People said staff treated them well, were kind and supportive and were available when they needed support, carers also said staff were helpful, supportive, welcoming and open to ideas on how to best support their relative.

Staff understood the individual needs of people, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. Staff supported people to maintain and develop their social skills and meet their sensory needs through various activities and tools.

Staff followed policy to keep people’s information confidential. Information held on electronic systems was protected.

The provider 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 within the service had a good understanding of people’s mental health, their risk history and their social circumstances outside of the hospital. Occupational therapists supported people to pursue their interests and hobbies. For example, staff supported a person to use their mobile phone to listen to music and to consider an aspiration of working in a laundrette when he is discharged due to his special interest being washing machines.

People said they always felt involved in their care and treatment and felt able to make suggestions.

However, there was a blanket policy in place for safety cutlery, and people had not been risk assessed to use metal cutlery. Staff told us this had been in place since COVID19.

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

People and carers told us that staff met with them regularly to review care plans and positive behaviour support plans, they felt they were included in care and treatment and able to contribute.

People were provided with a variety of therapeutic and recreational activities to join, to support their skills and wellbeing. These were tailored to people’s capabilities. For example, some people would be able to cook a meal, others would not so staff would bake a cake and then the person would decorate it.

Staff ensured people could access information on their rights and how to complain. Information about the Mental Health Act and making complaints was displayed on the ward. People were supported to understand their rights by using different ways to communicate, the ward had easy read documents for people that used them.

However, there were delays in accessing advocacy.

People said they would like more choice for food but the feedback on quality was positive. People had supervised access to the kitchen. People did not have access to make drinks or snacks independently and had to request the kitchen to be unlocked. This was a blanket policy and we had no evidence to demonstrate that less restrictive options had been considered. People purchased their own snacks.

The provider 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.

We observed interactions between staff and people who used the service and saw that these relationships were caring and compassionate, enabling staff to anticipate and meet people’s needs quickly and in ways that reduced and mitigated people’s discomfort and distress.

People told us they felt listened to and their feelings were respected. People felt able to approach staff with concerns.

The ward did not have a sensory room.

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

Adjustments were made for staff to support them in their roles. This included reasonable adjustments to working patterns, implementing a flexible working pattern, equipment such as standing desks, alongside adjusting staff duties if there were any changes to their physical health. The staff survey in 2024 demonstrated that 70% of the staff were satisfied with the opportunities for flexible working patterns.

We saw governance meeting minutes which documented a team building day that was planned. Staff were asked about their preferences for an activity that day.

The service displayed thank you cards received from discharged people and their relatives/carers.

Staff told us morale at the service varied depending on the acuity of the patients. Staff told us they felt respected by peers and managers in the service. However, staff said they did not feel valued by the trust and the 2024 staff survey showed that only 50% of staff were satisfied with the recognition they get for good work from the trust.

Staff and leaders had identified areas where staff required more support. Extra training had been organised for staff and regular discussions had been had with staff in team meetings and supervisions.

Staff could attend reflective practice sessions facilitated by the psychology department. This could be facilitated in groups or individually, and psychology would make themselves available after incidents and out of hours if required.