Bradford District Care 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

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

At our last assessment we rated responsive as good. At this assessment, the rating has remained good.

Patients did not have to stay in hospital when they were well enough to leave. The design, layout, and furnishings of the ward supported patients’ treatment, privacy, and dignity. Staff supported patients with activities outside the service, such as family relationships. The service met the needs of all patients, including those with a protected characteristic. Staff helped patients with communication, advocacy, and cultural and spiritual support. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the result.

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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Patients told us they were involved in their care planning and their ward round meetings where their care plans were reviewed. The care plans we reviewed showed patients were involved in choices about their care and treatment. We saw examples within the care plans where conversations, including one to ones between patients and named nurses and in multi-disciplinary meetings demonstrated patient participation.

Community meeting minutes demonstrated that patients were offered the opportunity to give feedback about all aspects of ward operations, such as food, activities and the environment, facilities and resources available to them. Where feedback was negative, appropriate actions were raised to try to resolve these issues.

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.

When appropriate, staff ensured that patients had access to external opportunities to support their recovery, for example support to access accommodation and continuing treatment for those moving into the community.

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with their families and carers. Where this was appropriate, families and carers could visit patients at the hospital. If patients needed it, they were offered encouragement to phone families and carers so that they could keep in touch.

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, including local authority safeguarding alerts, and to commissioners. CQC received appropriate notifications where necessary from the service. Staff ensured carers, families and commissioners were regularly updated about the patient’s progress.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information, for example, on treatments, local services, their rights and how to complain. This information was available throughout the service on notice boards. Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by patients and access to translation and interpretation services was provided if patients’ needs identified this.

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.

The service had recorded one complaint in the 12 months prior to the assessment and that was not upheld.

Patients that we spoke to knew how to complain or raise concerns. Staff were aware of how to manage complaints and described how patients would be supported if they did want to make a complaint.

We saw examples, where complaints had been made and investigated, and managers had provided the complainant with a letter providing feedback on the outcomes of those investigations.

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.

The trust ensured patients could expect their care, treatment and support to be accessible, timely and in line with best practice, quality standards and legal requirements, including those on equality and human rights. This included making reasonable adjustments for disabled people, addressing communication barriers and having accessible premises.

Staff planned for patients’ discharge, including good liaison with care managers/co-ordinators. In the last 12 months, there were 18 delayed discharges from the ward. Discharge was never delayed for other than clinical reasons.

Staff supported patients to access specific cultural and spiritual support, and made reasonable adjustments for people, for example those with mobility issues were assessed and provided with walking aids and shower chairs.

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.

All the patients we spoke with felt they were treated fairly, and they were actively involved in planning their care. No concerns were raised regarding discrimination and staff made every effort to ensure reasonable adjustments were in place to support equity in experience and outcomes.

Staff were 100% compliant in mandatory equality and diversity training. The service had links with local support and social groups to support patients, such as religious groups and LGBTQ+ organisations.

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, including at the end of their life.

Staff supported patients to make decisions about their care and treatment and their future. Staff created personalised care plans to account for the patient’s needs, wishes and feelings.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of patients with complex needs.