Sheffield Health Partnership University 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 as 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 beds well. Patients were not moved between wards except for their benefit. Patients did not have to stay in hospital when they were well enough to leave. Staff supported patients with activities outside the service, such as education and 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 results.

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 felt involved in their care and said staff were understanding and supported them to make specific decisions for themselves. Staff involved relatives or advocates when people had given their consent to do so. Staff offered patients copies of their care plans and recorded this in the care record. Relatives were invited to relevant meetings and events within the hospital setting.

Staff worked in partnership with patients, relatives and advocates which enabled them to respond to any relevant changes in the needs of patients and effectively manage risk. The hospital had a robust multidisciplinary team to meet patient’s needs and staff enabled patients and relatives to provide feedback in the MDT meetings.

1 patient explained to us how staff are supporting them to access their own mixed martial arts gym in the community.

Patients also told us that there weren’t enough activities on the ward areas with a lot of activities taking place off the hospital site meaning not everybody could attend.

Patients told us that there is a lack of activity provision at weekends and night times which resulted in patients becoming bored. We saw evidence of this being reported in ‘your voice’ meetings. We did see evidence of activities taking place whilst present on the ward areas and there were visible activity timetables on all the ward areas.

There were quiet areas on the wards where patients could have privacy. We observed a good rapport between patients and staff.

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 ensured patients maintained contact with relatives, inviting them to meetings and keeping them up to date with their family member’s care where consent was granted. A ward mobile phone was available to any patients that didn’t have their own personal mobile phone. However, we were informed during our inspection that when this was broken, it wasn’t always replaced in a timely manner.

Independent advocacy as well as culturally appropriate advocates and chaplaincy attended the ward to support patients with their spiritual needs. Consideration was given to people wishing to attend their regular place of worship away from the hospital sites with staff supporting where appropriate.

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 provided patients with information and offered them a copy of their care plans. Patients had access to advocates and had been given information on their legal status, rights and medication.

Staff tailored information and advice provided to meet patients’ needs. For example, staff could provide a range of information and in a range of formats if required. The service involved relatives, advocates and interpreters where necessary.

The trust had processes in place to provide appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information. Weekly Patient Voice meetings were in place to allow staff to share information with patients and provide updates on ideas patients had raised to improve the service.

The trust had previously implemented an anonymous feedback forum called ‘Safe to Share’ that was based on a QR code.

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.

In the previous 12-month period, there were 29 complaints made involving Burbage ward, Stanage ward, Dovedale 2 ward and Endcliffe ward.

A total of 4 complaints were upheld.

Burbage ward received the greatest number of complaints with 16 received in total. Themes included communication and staff conduct. Prior to our assessment, a new management team was deployed onto Burbage to address identified concerns.

As a result of complaints received, the trust continued to develop its concerns and complaints handling procedures and recognised that the complaints team remit extended beyond the formal complaints process.

The trust had improved the formal complaints procedure by responding to complainants within agreed deadlines and were committed to doing this without sacrificing quality. We saw evidence of compassionate and robust investigations and responses to complainants.

The trust offered an inclusive complaints process, and it aimed to make everyone welcome and able to share their feedback.

Interpreting services were utilised to translate correspondence, or during direct

conversations with complainants.

The trust ensured that they communicated with patients in their preferred way (for

example, some people found talking on the telephone difficult and preferred to

communicate via e-mail).

Patients and relatives told us they knew how to raise a complaint or raise concerns and those that had raised concerns told us that they received prompt feedback.

Patients and their relatives were encouraged to be involved in the development of their care and treatment and had access to independent advocacy.

Patients were involved in regular Patient Voice meetings to enable any issues to be discussed openly. We observed that staff were visible and available for patients to speak with when they needed support or advice. There were posters on noticeboards which informed patients how to raise a concern or make a complaint.

Patients had a range of ways in which they could give feedback such as Patient Voice meetings, multi-disciplinary meetings, surveys, complaints process and safe to share forum and debriefs.

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.

Patients had access to a range of professionals including a dietician, associate psychologist, social worker, occupational therapist, art therapist, physiotherapist, fitness instructor as well as independent advocacy.

There was adequate medical cover day and night with an on-call rota utilised by medics during night times and weekends, enabling a medic to attend the hospital quickly in an emergency.

Staff supported patients to meet their specific religious and cultural needs. There were multi-faith rooms available for patients to access, and chaplaincy attended the ward on a regular basis.

Specific equipment was available for patients with accessibility needs and there were accessible bedroom and bathroom facilities on each ward.

We saw evidence that patients’ physical health needs were being effectively managed, with referrals made to physiotherapy evidenced in care records and specialist equipment and safety aids being sought by the occupational therapy team.

Documentation could be provided in a variety of formats such as easy read and staff arranged for interpreters to patients or carers when required.

Multi-disciplinary meetings were discharge focussed and involved different professionals such as community teams, social workers and discharge co-ordinators.

In the 12-month period prior to this assessment, there was 128 delayed discharges across the 4 wards that we assessed, these were in the main due to a lack of suitable accommodation in the community and social care provision. The wards with the highest number of delayed discharges were Burbage ward and Stanage ward.

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.

Patients felt they were treated fairly and equally and relatives confirmed that they were actively involved with planning care for their family members, if they had given their consent for them to do so. 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.

Patients had access to advocacy to meet the needs of people detained or those who lacked capacity.

The staff we spoke with were alert to inequality and gave examples of how they would link in with local, culturally specific support and advocacy groups such as SACMHA and Pakistani Muslim Centre (PMC) to support a patient’s cultural and religious beliefs and diversity.

Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights and at the time of our assessment compliance was 94%.

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.

Leaders dealt with discrimination and monitored and analysed incidents and discussed them in regular meetings.

Patients had access to a range of professionals to support their care and treatment.

The trust had different ways for patients, relatives and advocates to provide feedback and tailored care, support, and treatment in response to this feedback where possible. The service provided different communication aids to enhance the quality of life and independence of people, such as translation services, easy read documents and leaflets in various languages.

Patients admitted to the wards that had either a diagnosis of autism, or a learning disability could complete a sensory assessment with a member of the occupational therapy team.

We noted in the records that the occupational therapist had met with a patient diagnosed with autism to look at completing a hospital passport and a sensory ladder tool.

We saw examples of where the occupational therapist had made autistic patients an individual timetable so that they knew what was happening and when. We also saw an example where a nurse had helped to put subtitles on the television so that they could watch television without the sound.

Staff told us that sensory items such as weighted blankets and ear defenders were available for patients who may find them useful.

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.

Patients attended multi-disciplinary meetings with staff where they could contribute to decisions regarding their future care provision and discharge plans. Relatives were informed and involved in the options for their loved one’s care and progress.

Staff told us processes were in place to ensure all relevant parties were involved in planning and preparing for discharges. This included social care, community teams, future placements, and relatives if the patient consented to this. Patients were involved in discharge planning to ensure their choices and preferences were accounted for.

Care plans were recovery focused, referred to discharge planning and multi-disciplinary meetings and documented actions for discharge. They referred to therapeutic practice, goal setting and focussed on independence.