Blackpool Teaching Hospitals 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.

Staff treated young people with compassion and kindness. 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 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.

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 them with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. Young people and their families told us that staff were kind and caring and said they felt listened to.

Staff supported young people to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. For example, staff explained about medication and its’ potential side effects to young people and their carers and supported them to monitor this.

Staff directed young people and their families to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services. For example, staff referred a young person to podiatry for help with a foot problem and staff worked with a range of professionals including social workers, care coordinators and school nurses to meet young people’s needs.

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards young people without fear of the consequences.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about young people. For example, young people were asked who they wished information to be shared with. Where there were risks about sharing information with certain people this was added onto the system as an alert.

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 made adjustments for disabled people – for example, by ensuring disabled people’s access to premises and by meeting young people’s specific communication needs. Staff had used cue cards and pictures with young people to support their communication needs. Staff adapted the sensory environment where possible such as removing ticking clocks and providing fidget toys.

Staff ensured that young people and their families could obtain information on treatments, local services, their rights and how to complain. There were information boards in the waiting room with information about various resources and local services and staff shared relevant telephone numbers with young people and their families including apps to help young people with their mental health. The information provided was in a form accessible to the patient group.

Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by young people. Managers ensured that young people and their families had easy access to interpreters and/or signers where needed.

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 discussed treatment options with young people where possible and made adaptions to support young people to get involved. For example, where a young person did not speak, questions were framed to enable the young person to nod or shake their head in response to questions asked and some staff used drawing as a tool for supporting young people to communicate.

Care plans were focused on the young person’s concerns and their goals. Young people felt staff listened to them and what they wanted in terms of their support and carers felt that staff supported young people to explore their goals.

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 held daily meetings to review referrals into the service. The meeting included staff from across the service which enabled staff to discuss young people’s needs and respond to these in a timely way. Waiting times were mostly short, for example, the average waiting time for young people awaiting first contact in the CAMHS service was 3 weeks which was within national standards. Waiting times for an initial assessment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder was a maximum of 4 weeks. Young people and carers said that staff contacted them within a few days and that they generally had their initial contact within 4 weeks. In situations where the service did not take on referral information, signposting was provided to young people and their family/ carers.

The service had embedded the Thrive model and provided a range of services dependent on the needs of the young person and their family. Young people could be seen at school, in the community or at the service. Staff worked with both young people and their families and carers, providing support for young people and parenting support for families and carers.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, such as self-harm or suicidal ideation but did not always complete risk assessments and care plans for these accordingly.

Staff mostly identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, young people. However, risk assessments and care plans were not always updated where additional risks had been identified or in response to incidents.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Some staff did not always feel respected, supported and valued. This varied between teams. Some teams felt they were receiving good support, whilst others felt they were not receiving responsive support from leaders.

Staff felt positive and proud about working for their team. However, some staff felt that the provider did not focus on the needs of the mental health service. Staff particularly struggled with a lack of recruitment to meet the service’s needs and staff were struggling with continuous professional development being on hold.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service. The provider recognised staff success within the service – for example, through recognition shout outs and team away days.