Kent and Medway Mental Health NHS 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

Caring 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 caring as good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

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

Patients consistently told us staff were kind, supportive and reassuring. Staff generally treated patients with compassion and kindness and supported patients during periods of distress. Staff understood patients’ individual needs and supported patients to develop independence, access meaningful activities and participate in decisions about their care and future plans.

Staff used personalised and accessible communication approaches to support patients’ understanding and involvement in care and treatment decisions. Patients were encouraged to make choices about their daily routines, activities and leave arrangements.

However, staff did not always fully respect patients’ privacy and dignity. During the assessment, we observed 1 occasion where a staff member entered a patient’s bedroom before receiving a response after knocking while the patient was undressed. Patients also told us staff did not always wait for a response after knocking before entering bedrooms.

Patients and carers generally felt involved in care and treatment planning. Staff sought feedback from patients and involved families and carers appropriately, with the patient’s consent. However, some carers told us communication from the service was not always consistent.

Most patients experienced caring and compassionate support from staff who understood their individual needs and preferences.

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.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion or fully respect their privacy and dignity.

A Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) completed during the assessment identified 1 occasion where staff spoke across patients during a mealtime interaction rather than fully involving them in conversation. Patients also told us staff did not always wait for a response after knocking before entering bedrooms. During the assessment, we observed 1 occasion where a staff member entered a patient’s bedroom before receiving a response after knocking while the patient was undressed. This did not respect the patient’s privacy and dignity.

Following the assessment, the provider told us the incident had been addressed with staff through written communication and handover, and that learning would be reinforced through multidisciplinary team (MDT) development days and wider organisational learning processes.

However, patients consistently told us staff were kind, supportive and reassuring. One patient said staff “went above and beyond” to support them. Patients told us staff listened to them, supported them during periods of distress and generally treated them with dignity and respect.

Throughout the assessment, most interactions between staff and patients were warm, respectful and compassionate. Staff knew patients well and understood their individual communication needs, preferences and interests.

Staff responded promptly to concerns raised during the assessment. Most patients experienced caring and compassionate support from staff who understood their individual needs and preferences.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences. Staff took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture, backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Patients told us staff knew them well and understood what was important to them as individuals. Patients spoke positively about being supported to take part in activities they enjoyed, including fishing, badminton, music and board games. Patients were also encouraged to personalise their bedrooms and make choices about their daily routines and activities.

Patients’ care plans reflected their individual goals, preferences and communication needs. Staff used adapted and personalised communication approaches to support patients with learning disabilities and autistic patients to understand information, express themselves and take part in decisions about their care and treatment.

Patients had access to information about their rights and advocacy services in formats that met their communication needs, including easy-read information and personalised communication tools.

The ward environment included co-designed elements chosen by patients, including the garden area, which helped promote individuality and a sense of ownership within the service.

Throughout the assessment, we observed staff adapting their approach to meet patients’ individual strengths, preferences and communication needs. Findings from the Quality of Life Tool also reflected inclusive and person-centred support.

Patients were supported in a way that recognised their individuality and encouraged choice, independence and involvement in their care.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their care, treatment and wellbeing.

Most patients we spoke with during the assessment told us they were encouraged to make choices about their daily lives and were supported to develop greater independence. Patients spoke positively about having access to community activities including shopping, bowling and cinema trips. Patients also told us they were supported to take part in cooking activities, money management and planning their weekly routines.

Patients had fob access to their bedrooms and to the co-designed garden area during the day, which promoted autonomy, dignity and freedom of movement. Two patients attended college and one patient volunteered in the on-site canteen.

Staff used accessible information and adapted communication approaches to support patients to make decisions about their care, treatment and daily routines. Accessible support plans using symbols, photographs and plain language were in place where required.

Throughout the assessment, we observed staff offering choices, encouraging independence and supporting patients to make decisions about their daily lives.

Patients were supported to develop independence, make choices and maintain control over their daily lives and future goals.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs promptly and acted to minimise discomfort, concern or distress.

Most patients we spoke with told us staff were approachable and available when they needed support. Patients said staff listened to them, offered reassurance and responded calmly when they became upset or anxious.

Staff were visible within communal areas throughout the assessment and available to provide emotional and practical support. Daily multidisciplinary huddles supported staff to identify changes in patients’ presentation and review risks, support needs and leave arrangements.

A Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) completed during the assessment showed staff responded calmly and supportively when patients required reassurance or emotional support. Staff used personalised behaviour support plans and adapted communication approaches to respond to patients’ individual needs.

Staff used de-escalation approaches and personalised behaviour support strategies to reduce the need for restrictive interventions. Restrictive practice remained low, with 4 episodes of rapid tranquillisation in the previous 12 months, all oral and accepted.

Patients told us staff responded appropriately and compassionately to their emotional and practical needs.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted staff wellbeing and supported staff to deliver person-centred care.

Most staff we spoke with told us they felt respected, supported and valued by the ward manager and wider multidisciplinary team. Staff described a positive and collaborative team culture and said they felt able to raise concerns and discuss practice issues openly.

Staff told us they felt positive and proud about working within the service and were motivated to support patients’ progress and independence.

Staff wellbeing was supported through reflective practice programmes, including ‘Understanding Myself and Others’, alongside team wellbeing activities and inclusive events. Staff also had access to support for their physical and emotional wellbeing through occupational health services.

The provider recognised staff achievements through staff recognition initiatives and wellbeing events. Staff appraisals included discussions relating to development, reflection and support needs.

Staff wellbeing and support systems helped enable staff to provide compassionate and person-centred care.