Francis House

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

We reviewed systems, pathways and transitions within the service and how the service was involving people to manage risk. Systems were in place and utilised to ensure people safely transitioned into and out of the service. People were involved in developing their risk assessments. Plans were considered for people unexpectedly leaving treatment and for deterioration in their mental health. Medicines management systems had improved following the last inspection and up-to-date GP summaries were routinely collected. Medical decisions were documented and handling, dispensing and documentation of medicines was robust. This meant all breaches of regulation identified at the previous inspection were addressed effectively.

This service scored 59 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We reviewed care records which evidenced people’s voice was included in their care pathway. Key workers recorded people’s voice within 1-1 sessions, aspects included monitoring of treatment side effects, personal well-being and coping strategies.

Staff and leaders were knowledgeable about people’s risks, and were aware of how to safely meet them. Staff and leaders told us they identified suitability of people’s needs prior to treatment to ensure they could safely be managed at the service.

Feedback from commissioning services in areas of England shared with us positive feedback of the service following admissions to the service.

We saw the service had processes in place to ensure safe transition into and out of the service. People’s care records clearly showed risk assessments were undertaken collaboratively with identified needs documented with action plans in place.

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

People were involved in their risk management plans. We reviewed the plans and found people’s views and preferences were documented regarding how to manage their highlighted risks. This informed how staff could work with people more effectively.

Staff and leaders were able to explain how they involved people to manage risks. Specific members of staff collaborated with people receiving treatment to ensure inclusion in their care pathway.

Processes and systems were in place to support staff to safely identify and manage people’s risks.

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

We did not look at Safe and effective staffing during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We reviewed people’s care records which evidence people were given information regarding their medicine and available treatments. This helped people to make informed decisions. People were able to discuss concerns, side effects and other factors relating to medications they were being prescribed.

Staff and leaders told us they used new processes and systems to manage and administer medicines.

We observed the processes of medicine management used at the service to be robust. We observed people had medicines prescribed appropriately and administered safely.

The service had recently introduced digital systems that assisted staff in reconciliation, administration and documentation of medicines.