Blackpool Teaching Hospitals 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

Good: This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

Staff managed access to the service well. Young people and their families could access the service quickly and in a range of locations. The service met the needs of all young people and their families – including those with a protected characteristic. Staff helped young people with communication, advocacy and cultural support. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the result.

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.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices but they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Young people did not always have a care plan and care plans were not always updated following changing needs. However, those we reviewed were individually tailored to the young person’s needs. Most, but not all care plans reflected the young person’s voice.

Staff told us how they considered young people’s individual needs, for example, staff considered if direct eye contact made young people feel uncomfortable and used drawing and colouring and resources such as fidget toys to help engage with young people.

Staff discussed treatment options with young people and adapted sessions to meet young people’s individual needs, for example used play therapy to work with young children and used videos and drawing to support young people to engage in different ways. However, psychological formulations had not been completed for young people.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff provided care that was joined up and flexible. Staff supported young people to transition to adult services where needed and would continue to support young people until an appointment was obtained for adult services.

Staff provided support in multiple locations to take into account the needs of young people and their families, these included community venues, schools, and home visits. Staff also provided support through virtual visits where young people were unable to meet face to face.

The service provided support for both young people and their families and provided parenting sessions for parents and carers as part of a whole family’s approach.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed. For example, staff raised safeguarding referrals and submitted notifications to the Care Quality Commission where required. Information governance systems included confidentiality of records.

The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard. Staff ensured that young people could obtain information on treatments, local services, their rights, how to complain and so on. The information provided was in a form accessible to the particular patient group. Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by young people and their families. Staff could also use a video interpreting call to support communication when young people required interpretation services.

Staff ensured carers, families and commissioners were regularly updated about the young people’s progress.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

There had been 1 formal complaint in the last 6 months and this complaint wasn’t upheld. There had been 0 complaints referred to Ombudsman in last 6 months.

We reviewed the last 5 complaints made to the service, which included complaints dating back to 2024. Themes included delays in communicating with young people and concerns about support pathways. However, overall numbers of complaints were low.

Young people and their families told us they knew how to complain or raise concerns and felt comfortable doing so.

When young people and their families complained or raised concerns, they received feedback, and there was evidence that staff had taken actions to address concerns.

Staff protected young people who raised concerns or complaints from discrimination and harassment. Staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately. We reviewed 5 complaints to the service. These was handled appropriately including an apology given and each point clearly reviewed and responded to.

Staff received feedback on the outcome of investigation of complaints and acted on the findings.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff ensured the needs of young people with mobility issues were met, the building was accessible to those with mobility needs including accessible bathrooms and lifts.

Staff ensured young people had access to post-discharge care, for example staff continued to support young people during their transition between young people and adult services. Staff planned for young peoples’ discharge, including good liaison with other services, including adult mental health services.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. For example, there was a young people’s service user group, called Entwined Minds, who were involved in service development.

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 had received trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights and were 100% compliant in this training.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Staff mostly created personalised care plans to account for the young people’s needs, wishes and feelings, although not all young people had a care plan. These were goal oriented but did not always contain evidence of discharge planning. Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies are involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs and multi-disciplinary meetings were carried out prior to complex discharges.

Staff liaised with other teams in the Trust and external agencies to support young people and their families to plan for their future. Discharge plans were flexible and focused on young people’s needs. Staff supported young people during the discharge process and had occasionally delayed discharge until young people had received appointments from adult services.