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 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 service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with them, how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs.

We reviewed 6 care records which were comprehensive and person-centred, reflecting patients’ individual physical, mental, emotional and social needs. Patient’s views and wishes were clearly documented with care plans and risk management plans.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The service provided appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that they tailored to individual needs.

The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard, a legal requirement for organisations providing NHS care. This standard ensures that people with disabilities or sensory impairments receive information and communication support in formats they can access and understand.

The service ensured people could obtain information on treatments, patients’ rights and how to complain. These were displayed on noticeboards around the ward.

Staff ensured carers, families and commissioners were regularly updated about the patient’s progress where appropriate.

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

Patients knew how to complain or raise concerns. The service received 5 complaints in the six months before inspection with 1 complaint being upheld, 1 complaint not upheld and 3 were still under investigation. Patients received feedback from complaints and any lessons learned were shared with staff.

Staff enabled patients to give feedback on the service they received. The ward held community meetings where patients could give feedback or make suggestions for improvements.

The peer support worker also ran peer support groups where patients could raise concerns or give feedback. Staff displayed a ‘You said, we did’ board on the ward to give updates on any suggestions raised by patients.

Patients could take part in provider collaborative groups including patient and carer support group and a female pathway group.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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 provider had undertaken equality impact assessments of all policies and procedures to ensure they did not disadvantage vulnerable people or those with protected characteristics.

Staff felt comfortable to raise any concerns about discriminatory behaviour and patients did not report any concerns about discrimination on the ward. However, neurodivergent patients did not feel their needs were fully met or understood.

Staff were trained in equality, diversity and human rights with 100% of staff having completed up to date training sessions.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.