Cambridgeshire and Peterborough 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 – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

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 provider 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.

People were involved in co-producing their own care and support plans with staff and these were reviewed and updated regularly. We reviewed care records which documented the patient voice regularly. These discussions took place in 1-1 meetings with their named nurse and in multidisciplinary team meetings.

Staff monitored people’s conditions and discussed any changes at handover meetings. People said they regularly met with all staff and were involved in their care and treatment.

The service had an activity coordinator that visited the ward daily, was responsible for offering and organising leisure-based activities and was also responsible for ensuring people had the resources and equipment for activities. People told us the activities were tailored round their interests. Activities were also supported by the ward staff. Therapists attended ward rounds every week and supported with planning for discharge.

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

Where appropriate, staff made sure people had access to opportunities for education and work.

People were supported to assess and develop community access, road safety and money skills.

Staff helped people to stay in contact with their families and carers. People said they were supported to have regular visits and phone calls from their family. Carers said the ward was supportive and welcoming and there was always enough staff around, in a non-intrusive way. We observed staff supporting people with visits from family.

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

Staff ensured people could access information on treatment and local services, in formats tailored to individual needs. We saw examples of easy read information to support people. For example, a document to help people to prepare and visualise what would happen when someone had a medical appointment at the local hospital. It had clear simple language and included pictures.

Across the ward we saw easy read signs for things such as what each room was and what different drawers in the kitchen were used for. There was also a folder in the nurse’s station with a variety of symbols.

Staff had access to equipment and information technology needed to do their work. The nurse’s station had enough room and access to computers for staff to be able to sit and do their work.

Leaders had access to information to support them with their management role. This included information on the performance of the service, staffing and people’s care. This information was presented and discussed in clinical governance meetings.

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

People, relatives and carers knew how to complain or raise concerns. People said if they had any complaints, they would speak to staff or the ward manager in the first instance. There was information on the wards in easy read format about how to make a complaint and advocacy.

Staff understood the policy on complaints and knew how to acknowledge and handle them. In the last 12 months, the ward had not received any formal complaints.

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

The service met the needs of people. The ward had an accessible bathroom, equipped for people who may have a physical disability and may require a hoist. The service was accessible with step free access in and out, including the garden areas.

Staff understood the needs of autistic people and people with a learning disability and worked to ensure that barriers faced by people were removed or mitigated against. For example, to meet people’s specific communication needs, we saw welcome packs and information sheets available in easy read. People said information was provided to them in a format that met their needs and people had copies of their care plan in an easy read format where required. Easy read symbols were also displayed across the ward.

People had access to chaplains, who worked alongside other health professionals to provide religious and spiritual care for people regardless of faith, belief or philosophy. Chaplains assisted with the practice of religious observance or through listening and dialogue. Leaflets were available to people on how to access this.

People had access to interpreting and translation services, through the trust’s contracted provider. Where needed this provided people with interpreters face-to-face, via telephone or video calls based on their needs and preferences.

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 demonstrated an understanding of both autism and people’s sexual orientation, ensuring that care was inclusive and free from discrimination.

The service admitted patients from diverse religious and cultural backgrounds.

Staff within the service promoted a culture in which people using the service felt empowered to give their views.

Information was also made available in various formats and languages upon request to ensure accessibility.

People were supported to understand and make decisions about their future care and support, including those relating to potential medical and psychological needs.

The multidisciplinary team worked collaboratively with people and their carers when planning for each person’s discharge. Staff ensured that appropriate arrangements were in place to sustain the person’s mental health. This included liaising with health and social care professionals to ensure people had appropriate accommodation to be discharged to and that a package of care was provided by mental health services. The ward liaised with services who had previously supported people, along with inviting them to discharge planning meetings to collaboratively support the person. Staff told us the community learning disabilities team regularly visited people to support with preparing for discharge.