Hampshire and Isle of Wight Healthcare 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.

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

We rated this key question as good because:

• Staff developed a profile of the young person to help staff meet their needs
• Staff told young people their rights under the Mental Health Act
• Staff made sure the young person’s voice was heard in meetings about their care and treatment

However:

• Families told us that staff did not always follow care plans

This service scored 70 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Families we spoke with told us that the staff did not always treat the young people as individuals as they expected them to confirm to all the rules that they set. However, the service had a reducing restrictive practice programme in place which included monthly meeting to identify and reduce blanket restrictions.

We spoke with a young person and 5 family members, and some of them told us that staff did not always listen to the young people or families about the young person’s needs. They told us that staff did not always follow care plans correctly. For example, staff had given young people too much food which could put them off eating. Families told us that some staff were difficult to understand as English was not their first language. However, all interactions between staff and young people we witnessed were polite, respectful and maintained the young person’s dignity. We observed staff effectively de-escalating a situation where a young person had become upset. They managed to do this successfully and avoided the need to use any restrictive interventions. Families also told us that staff were caring.

Staff told us that they felt able to raise concerns if they felt the young people were being treated disrespectfully.

There were bedrooms on the ground floor along with the communal areas of the ward, there were steps up to the dining area and a mobility ramp for young people who were unable to manage stairs. This meant that the service could accommodate the needs of young people with disabilities.

Staff provided information about treatments in a format that the young people could understand. For example, in different languages or in easy read. This also included information about patient rights and local services. The hospital could access interpreters including sign language.

The service was able to meet the dietary needs of young people for health reasons and for religious or cultural needs.

Staff worked with young people and their families to develop a care and treatment plan that met the young person’s needs and promoted independence. Staff encouraged young people to complete a personal profile so that staff understood more about the young person’s likes and dislikes.

Staff advised patients about their rights under the Mental Health Act and there were advocates available to young people.

Staff completed risk assessments for all young people that covered both physical health and mental health risks. Staff reviewed risks at daily safety huddles, weekly ward round and at CPA meetings and updated the assessments when risk changed. All young people had a zoning care plan in place that helped staff identify any early signs of a change in their presentation and included agreed plans for the staff to follow to support the young people. Young people had sensory grab bags designed to help meet their sensory needs quickly and prevent a crisis from occurring.

We reviewed patient care and treatment records and saw that staff worked with young people and their families to identify any possible risk and how the identified risks could be managed safely. Staff recorded in the care record what input the young person and their family had made to the plans and would develop crisis plans in partnership with the young person. Staff reviewed risk assessments monthly and made any changes that were required.

Staff worked with the young people to find ways to de-escalate them without the use of medication or physical restraint.

The staff that we spoke with said they felt valued and that their opinion was listened to. There were regular team meetings where they were able to express their opinion. Staff told us that managers would help on the unit when needed and made themselves available to the staff team. However, some staff felt the opinion of non-clinical staff was not valued the same as other members of the team.

There was an occupational health service available to staff where they could get support around physical and emotional issues. The service sickness and absence rate was 4%, which was lower than the NHS average of 4.9%. The staff turnover rate was 16%, which is higher than the NHS average of 10%.