Bradford District Care 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.

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

Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness. They respected patients’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of patients and supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff involved patients 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 75 (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 said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of the consequences.

We observed staff interacting with patients and saw that they were discreet, respectful, and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support, and advice at the time they needed it. Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients.

The six patients we spoke with said staff treated them with dignity and respect. They stated that staff showed them understanding and were kind to them.

One told us without the support of the staff they would not have progressed to the point where they were excited about discharge. Another told us staff had found accommodation within supported living where they had been promised ongoing support.

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 patients by ensuring disabled people’s access to premises and by meeting patients’ specific communication needs. The ward was on the first floor but there was lift.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights and how to complain. Some of these resources were available in easy read format. Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by patients, where needed.

Managers ensured that staff and patients had easy access to interpreters or signers where they were needed.

Patients had a choice of food to meet their dietary requirements; this included access to special diets for religious purposes and to account for allergies and intolerances. Information in care records was transferred to the staff that were preparing meals in the kitchen.

Staff ensured that patients had access to appropriate spiritual support. Patients told us they had recently attended a large cultural festival in a local park.

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.

The trust completed a friends and family survey and this for the whole of the inpatient mental health service. It was not possible to obtain individual ward data, but it was possible to identify comments made that mentioned the ward. There were mostly positive with only one comment that was not positive from a patient who did not understand why they were in a mental health service.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their own care treatment or condition. We saw that patients had copies of their care plans and understood the treatment they were receiving. Staff directed patients to other services and supported them to access those services if they needed help.

Patients told us they had no difficulty getting support both on and off the ward. Patients said staff treated them well and behaved kindly. We saw staff speaking with patients, interacting in a caring, interested manner, and patients appreciated this. Staff understood and respected the individual needs of each patient.

We saw in handovers that staff knew the patients well. Staff were able to tell us about patients and their histories, how they recognised if patients were having a difficult time and how they would interact with those patients to support them. Staff felt that they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients.

Patients told us they knew how to complain but felt they had no need to do so. Some had raised minor concerns and were happy that staff had taken them seriously and dealt with the issues raised.

Patients’ rights were given under the Mental Health Act, and this was monitored and documented for each patient. Patients had access to regular advocacy support and spoke positively about the advocate. Patients were invited to be involved in their ward meetings and were asked to provide written feedback before their meeting about their care treatment and wellbeing.

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 involved patients and relatives where appropriate in their care planning. All relatives we spoke to were involved in their loved one’s care and treatment where required. This was also clearly documented in care plans. Staff made sure patients understood their care and treatment.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, such as falls, and care planned for these accordingly. Staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when patients’ behaviours became heightened. Daily risk handover sessions were held, and risk assessments were updated daily if any new risk was identified.

Staff recognised that patients needed to have access to, and links with, their advocacy and support networks in the community and they supported patients with this. They ensured patients had easy access to additional support. Staff displayed a range of information for patients around the service about other organisations and supported patients to access other support, such as housing and benefits, when needed.

The service empowered and supported access to advocacy.

Patients valued their relationships with the staff team and felt that they often exceeded expectations when providing care and support. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately. Patients told us that the service had responded to different risks as patients explored often emotionally challenging issues.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.
Staff felt respected, supported, and valued. They felt positive and proud about working for the trust and their team. They had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service including confidential counselling and were referred when a need was identified.
Staff sickness rates had varied throughout the previous 12 months, with the average rate being 8.91%. The highest monthly rate had been 15.74% and the lowest 2.18%.
The ward manager’s office had been moved from a remote location to central position, allowing the manager to monitor and support staff more closely.