Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health 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

At our last inspection at Reaside we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

At Reaside people gave mixed feedback about how staff treated them with kindness, compassion and dignity and how they responded to their immediate needs. 5 of 10 people said that some staff were not caring, staff sometimes ignored them, did not always respect their dignity and were not friendly or supportive. However, 5 people were positive about staff and said staff were lovely, caring, respected their dignity and responded when they needed help.

People who used FIRST told us they were involved in their care and staff treated them with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect.

There had been some improvements in staff morale at Reaside although some staff said this could be improved further.

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.

At Reaside people gave mixed feedback about how staff treated them with kindness, compassion and dignity. 5 of 10 people we spoke with said that some staff were not caring, staff sometimes ignored them, did not always respect their dignity and were not friendly or supportive. 1 person said that the nurses did not listen to them as they were too busy. 1 person said that staff did not address them by their name. However, 5 people were positive about staff and said staff were lovely, caring, respected their dignity and responded when they needed help.

We observed some positive interactions between staff and people using the service particularly when staff were engaging people in activities and card games. 1 person thanked the nurse for referring them to the diabetic clinic and felt they had listened to them when discussing their health needs. However, we also observed a staff member not listening to a person and dismissing what they were saying abruptly. We discussed this with the chief nurse and action was taken to ensure staff engaged with people while doing their observations.

From care plans reviewed we saw staff were aware of people’s individual communication needs and how to make information and care plans accessible to individuals. Resident council meeting minutes reviewed showed that staff responded to what people said and minutes with actions taken were displayed on the ward.

People using FIRST told us that staff were kind, polite, friendly, caring, respectful of their privacy and listened to them. We observed that staff were caring, sensitive to people’s emotional needs, respectful of people’s homes that they visited and respected people’s privacy. Staff spent time talking with people and ensured they understood their care and treatment.

The teams had a ‘family and carer lead’ who made links with the leads in the secure inpatient services. They were setting up family groups in the community to offer a space for families to connect with each other and to offer education about supporting their relative. Family and carers also gave training to staff about their experience. Staff were aware of the importance of involving people’s families and listening to them.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Independence, choice and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

At Reaside most people told us that their needs and wishes were a priority for staff, and they responded when needed. 1 person said that staff quickly arranged a dental appointment for them when needed to reduce their pain. However, 2 people told us that staff were always too busy which meant they did not always respond, 1 person said this meant they sometimes did not have access to fresh air as staff were not able to escort them in the garden.

Staff were alert to people’s needs and wishes. Records reviewed showed that when a person was in seclusion staff responded quickly using staff who the person responded better to, to encourage the person and reduce their distress.

We observed on Avon ward that water was not available for people to help themselves to when they wanted, and people had to ask staff when they wanted a drink. Staff did respond to requests, but this did not promote people’s independence.

People who used FIRST said their needs, views, wishes and comfort were a priority for staff. Staff discussed with the person warning signs of becoming unwell and how they might respond. Staff were alert to people’s needs and took time to communicate and engage people in discussions about their immediate needs. They increased contact with the person and considered any additional referrals where needed. People’s care records included plans as to how to respond if the person was in distress.

Staff demonstrated they monitored people’s medicines that could impact on their physical health. Staff worked with the person’s GP and pharmacists to ensure that if people experienced side effects, they could take appropriate action to minimise the risk to the person’s health.

At Reaside staff told us that since our previous inspection there had been some improvement in staff morale however further improvement was needed. Staff said they did not always get their breaks, and they raised this with managers. Staff could see improvements since the senior management team had changed at Reaside and hoped this would continue. Staff said managers were more visible on the wards. Internationally educated nurses told us they had been well supported in their roles.

In FIRSTpeople received safe, effective and person-centred care as the trust recognised and met the wellbeing needs of staff. Staff felt supported, said they worked as a team, had regular breaks and there was good staff morale. Staff were supported in their work through regular training, supervision, monthly team meetings and an annual away day. Staff felt valued by their leaders and colleagues. They had a sense of belonging and were able to contribute to decision making.