Cheswold Park Hospital

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

We assessed a limited number of quality statements in the responsive key question and found some areas of good practice. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was inadequate. The assessment of these areas indicated some areas of good practice since the last inspection, our rating for the key question is now requires improvement.

This service scored 39 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People we spoke with felt involved in their care and felt staff were understanding and supported them to make specific decisions for themselves, which involved relatives or advocates if requested. Patients told us they could have copies of their care plans and positive behaviour support plans. Relatives told us that they were invited to relevant meetings and recently there had been increased events within the hospital environment which enabled them to understand the setting and spend time with other relatives.

Staff told us that collaborative positive behaviour support plans enabled them to respond to any relevant changes in patient needs and that they were able to effectively manage risk due to robust care planning. The hospital had a multidisciplinary team to meet patient’s needs. Managers told us the introduction of a staffing tool had improved the day-to-day functioning and availability of staff and this had a positive impact on increased activities and time spent with patients to meet their needs.

We completed tours of all wards during the onsite inspection and all the wards provided rooms where patients could go if they needed a quiet space. In addition, Wentbridge ward catered for sensory need by offering areas which were less stimulating. When undertaking the SOFI’s we observed good rapport between patients and staff and patients engaged in a calm and friendly manner. Observed group activities engaged patients well and promoted positive integration.

The provider had systems in place to ensure patients knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care. Managers undertook regular audits, reviews, and meetings to ensure oversight over people's care and treatment. The service recorded when a patient’s Section 17 leave was cancelled and undertook care plan audits which recognised the need to ensure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. Care planning reflected patient’s protected characteristics and staff used the correct pronouns within the plans.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Patients we spoke with, told us they were provided with information, their care plans, and their positive behaviour support plans. Patients had easy access to advocates and had been given information on their section and medication. Relatives were happy with the level of information provided and the level of involvement in the patients care. Relatives told us about increased events and interaction for families which had improved since the last inspection.

Staff could provide a range of information and in a range of formats if required. The service involved families, advocates and interpreters were necessary.

The provider had processes in place to provide appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information. Ward audits were completed in May 2024 regarding providing information for patients and staff and all were above 90% compliant. Community meetings were in place for all wards and nominated patients represented their wards at patients committee. A patient survey was completed in September 2023. These results were analysed and used to inform the improvement action plans for the service.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.