Sussex Partnership 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

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

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.

Staff did not always discuss care plans and Positive Behavioural Support plans with patients and did not always ensure that their views were recorded, and a copy of their care plans were offered to them. However, patients were invited to attend their ward rounds and felt able to express their wishes, feelings and preferences to the multi-disciplinary team.

Staff supported patients to access the advocacy service so that they could obtain independent support and representation if they wished.

When appropriate, staff ensured that patients had access to education and work opportunities that were of interest to them.

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with their families and carers. For example, patients who had capacity to give consent had their relatives attend MDT ward rounds with them, either in person or via video call. All wards had a carer’s lead who liaised between patients and their relatives. However, 3 patients and 2 relatives we spoke with told us they had not been supported to maintain contact with their families.

Staff supported patients to access their chosen place of worship within the community. A chaplain visited the wards and there was a multi faith room on site. Staff escorted patients with leave to places of worship in the community if patients wished to attend.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed. We saw evidence that the service was in regular contact with local safeguarding teams, commissioners and the Care Quality Commission.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records. All records were stored on an electronic system. Staff had undertaken general data protection regulation (GDPR) as part of their mandatory training.

We saw a welcome to the ward board and information boards on all wards. This included information for patients and carers, information about therapeutic activities and self-directed activities, safeguarding, the Mental Health Act, advocacy, complaints and quality improvement projects.

The information provided was in a format accessible to patients. Information was simple and easy to understand. The wards complied with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). This is a law that requires NHS and adult social care organisations to ensure that people with disabilities, impairments or sensory loss can access and understand information and receive communication support.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, how to complain and so on. This information was displayed on patient notice boards in the communal area on each ward.

Staff provided different information in a format accessible to patients. For example, we saw an accessibility and communication alert highlighted in red for two patients on Amber and Palmeira wards. This alert was in place for staff to be able to see their communication needs at a glance. One patient wore different colour wrist bands to communicate their mood to staff.

Staff ensured carers, families and commissioners were regularly updated about patients’ progress. With the patient’s consent, staff involved carers in care planning, discharge planning and invited them to all patient review meetings. Staff informed families of incidents when they occurred. Relatives told us that communication from the wards was good and they were given information about changes that related to their relatives.

Patients knew how to complain or raise concerns. There were posters and leaflets on the ward and staff supported patients to make their complaint. Amber ward had a complaints box where patients were able to note down their complaints. Feedback was reviewed by the charge nurse or matron.

When patients complained or raised concerns, they received feedback on the outcome of the investigation and patients received better care because of this.

Staff protected patients who raised concerns or complaints from discrimination and harassment. This was through maintaining confidentiality and adherence to data protection.

Staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately. Staff we spoke with were able to explain the process and knew how to escalate complaints to the right person.

Staff received feedback on the outcome of the investigation of complaints and acted on the findings. For example, managers discussed outcome of investigations during supervision and governance meetings

Staff ensured the needs of patients with mobility issues were met. For example, all wards were accessible. All wards were wheelchair friendly as were patients' ensuite bathrooms. Wheelchair users were placed in bedrooms at ground level or had access to lifts. Staff told us that they could provide walking aids and shower chairs if a patient had mobility issues

There was adequate medical cover day and night, a doctor could attend the ward quickly in an emergency and the hospital was within a reasonable travelling distance to the local acute hospital.

Staff ensured patients had access to post-discharge care. For example, S117 aftercare, community mental health services and crisis services.

Staff planned for patients’ discharge, including good liaison with care managers/co-ordinators. Care coordinators and other relevant professionals were invited to discharge planning meetings. We saw evidence on patient records that discharge planning was undertaken, and referrals were made to appropriate services. For example, staff made referral to specialist teams such as the autism team.

Discharges were sometimes delayed for patients. In the last 12 months, there were 5 delayed discharges from Jade ward and 2 on Maple ward. There were no discharge plans in place for 1 patient on Maple and Rowan wards. Delayed discharges were due to the availability of social housing accommodation for patients to move into.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. Community meetings took place weekly on each ward. We attended a community meeting and observed that patients were encouraged to give their views and that staff listened to them and gave them a response. Staff provided a variety of opportunities for patients to give feedback about the service, including patient forums, a suggestion box, community meetings and surveys. However, community meeting minutes did not always demonstrate follow up of actions and clear outcomes. For example, the same requests made by patients was presented every week.

The provider had undertaken equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage.

Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights. Training compliance for equality and diversity was 80%.

Staff supported patients to make decisions about their care and treatment and their future wishes - for example do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPRs).

Staff created personalised care plans to account for the patient’s needs, wishes and feelings.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of patients with complex needs. For example, we saw that patients with communication difficulties were referred to the Speech and language Therapist (SaLT). Patients had access to dentists, dieticians and solicitors.