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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

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

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

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.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment and that it was person-centred.

People were involved in co-producing their own care and support plans with staff and these were reviewed and updated regularly. Each patient had an individualised meal plan created by the dietician. Patients were following pathways relevant to their needs and wishes.

Physical health monitoring was tailored to each person, with relevant actions. For example, if a patient’s blood pressure was below a certain level they would be encouraged to drink fluids and use a wheelchair to mobilise until their blood pressure improved.

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

The service had an occupational therapy assistant; they were responsible for offering and organising leisure-based activities and was also responsible for ensuring people had the resources and equipment for activities. Activities were also supported by the ward staff at weekends. Therapists attended ward rounds and supported with planning for discharge.

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.

Where appropriate, staff made sure people had access to opportunities for education and work. Staff told us that the occupational therapist had supported a patient to re-discover her identity and a career she would like to pursue. The patient has since written to the ward after being discharged to confirm she is now in the chosen job role.

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. However, the visiting space on the ward was limited and could hinder visits from friends and family.

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 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.

There was a noticeboard in the corridor with a limited number of posters on which included ward outcomes, freedom to speak up guardian, family ambassador poster, a patient advisory group and a Patient Advice and Liaison service (PALS) poster.

Whilst there were no patients with communication needs at the time of our visit, we saw examples of accessible easy read leaflets relating to advocacy and peoples’ rights.

However, the advocacy poster on the ward noticeboard was outdated and staff told us the advocacy provider had now changed.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. decisions about their care and tell them what’s changed as a result.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

Three out of 4 carers told us they did not know how to complain or raise concerns. However, there was information on the wards about how to make a complaint.

Carers spoke positively about the communication, with specific praise for the doctor and the family ambassador.

Staff understood the policy on complaints and knew how to acknowledge and handle them. In the last 12 months, the ward had received 2 formal complaints. One related to a restraint and the other was voicing their dissatisfaction in the treatment provided.

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.

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 a lift and stairs including to 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, staff had rubber key toppers to minimise the ‘jingling’ noise of keys and cloud space sound proofing was being considered for installation. However, 1 carer out of 4 we spoke to told us that they did not feel staff understood their relatives undiagnosed autistic traits.

Leaders told us that information was provided to patients in a format that met their needs. For example, the occupational therapist worked with a patient to identify how the ward could support her to understand and read her clinical documents alongside her dyslexia. She was provided with a variety of examples of writing in different fonts, sizes and spacing, on different colours of paper, to help identify which would be best for her. These were based on information from the British Dyslexia Association. After this, all further documents shared with her were adapted to the identified preferences. This included Care Programme Approach (CPA), Multi-disciplinary Team meeting (MDT) and meal plan documents.

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.

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.

The service gathered data during admission to ensure they were aware of peoples ages, sexual orientation, ethnicity and religion/belief.

Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights. The service had clear policies aligned with equality, diversity, and inclusion principles to prevent disadvantage and promote fairness for all, including those with protected characteristics. Overall, 100% of staff had completed mandatory training in diversity and inclusion.

Although there was limited diversity within the patient group, staff remained aware of individual needs.

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

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.

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. We saw evidence of discharge planning within care plans, multidisciplinary meetings and patient ward round.