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 means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

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

Staff treated young people with compassion and kindness. They respected people’s privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of young people and supported them to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff involved young people in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

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.

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 young people showed that they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing young people with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. We saw positive interactions between staff and young people. We observed staff responding to young people in a sensitive manner. Staff were observed to be kind and friendly towards young people and each other.

Staff supported young people to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Young people told us they spoke to a member of staff if they had any queries about their care or treatment. Young people were encouraged to attend ward rounds and express their views.

The service had a clothing and toiletries bank for young people who needed any of these items. Consideration was given to young people’s dignity as these items were kept in an area off the ward, so that young people would not feel embarrassed about needing to obtain these items in view of their peers.

Young people described staff as kind and caring. They said staff listened to their concerns and were supportive. One carer described the staff as ‘amazing people’.

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.

The service met the needs of young people who used the service, including those with protected characteristics. Staff helped young people with communication, advocacy and cultural and spiritual support. Staff ensured care, support and treatment reflected young people’s individual needs, strengths, backgrounds and preferences. Staff developed communication cards with young people to support their communication where appropriate.

Staff supported young people to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff provided one-to-one sessions with young people to go through their risk assessments, care plans and options for therapeutic activities. Staff supported young people to engage in meaningful activities. Staff supported young people to maintain and develop their social skills and met their needs through various activities and tools.

Staff ensured that young people could obtain information on treatments, local services, young people’s rights, how to complain and so on. There was information available for young people and carers on all the units. Information was available in different languages if required. Staff could access interpreters for young people for whom English was not their first language.

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 supported young people to understand and have involvement in their own care and treatment. Young people we spoke to told us that they were involved in their care plans with staff, they had a copy of their care plan and that they were reviewed regularly. Young people were supported to set their own short and long term goals.

Staff within the service had a good understanding of young people’s mental health, their risk history and their social circumstances outside the hospital. Occupational therapists and activity co-ordinators supported young people to pursue their interests and hobbies. Young people were encouraged to attend onsite education.

Staff supported young people to maintain contact with their friends and family. Young people had access to visits and there was a quiet space available for them to meet their friends and family. Young people were supported to have visits in the community where appropriate, and young people were supported to go on home leave where possible.

Young people had access to their own drinks and snacks in the dining room. Young people were supported by staff to access the kitchen if they wanted to make a hot drink. Occupational therapy staff ran cooking and baking groups which promoted young people’s independence.

Young people had access to outside space. There was open access to the courtyard. There was an additional outside space with a pool table and table tennis available. Young people needed staff support to access this area due to it being away from the main ward area, and there were blind spots that could not be observed from the ward.

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.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, young people. Staff engaged with young people and were able to notice and respond to any change in presentation. Most young people told us they could approach staff with any concerns they had, and that staff would support them.

Staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when young people’s behaviours became heightened. Records we reviewed included evidence of de-escalation methods being used, as well as individual protective factors and coping strategies that were developed with young people and carers.

Staff ensured that young people’s needs were responded to. Young people had access to call bells when they needed immediate assistance. We reviewed observation records and found that observations were completed in line with policy.

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-centred care.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Staff felt positive and proud about working for the service and their team. Staff told us the teams were motivated and they felt they could speak freely and share ideas in meetings.

Staff had access to wellbeing support through the trust’s wellbeing service. Staff received reflective practice sessions and were debriefed in the event of any incidents. Staff attended service away days.

Leaders recognised staff success within the service. Leaders told us they nominated at least one staff member every month for a trust pride award, recognising the positive work they had done. Leaders provided staff with positive feedback when they did something well, and positive feedback from young people and carers was also shared with staff.

Leaders supported staff development. Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported. Leaders discussed development goals with staff, identified individual skills and supported them to take on specific lead roles within the service or signposted them to additional training.