• Mental Health
  • Independent mental health service

Archived: The Corner House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

136 Moorgate Road, Rotherham, South Yorkshire, S60 3AZ (01709) 379583

Provided and run by:
Turning Point

All Inspections

20 and 21 February 2017

During a routine inspection

We rated The Corner House as good because:

  • Each patient record contained a comprehensive personal behaviour support plan, which enabled staff to provide care tailored to their specific needs. A multidisciplinary team reviewed behaviour support plans regularly and there was evidence of patient input into them.
  • The service had robust risk assessment and monitoring arrangements in place for all patients. When risks changed, staff reviewed and updated these.
  • Patients had access to a range of activities and therapies aimed at promoting their independence and recovery
  • Patients had access to on-site psychiatric treatment and psychological therapies through a contract the provider held with a local trust.
  • Staff provided patients with on-going monitoring of their physical health needs and screened patients for conditions such as obesity and diabetes.
  • Staff interacted with patients in a caring compassionate manner. They used verbal de-escalation appropriately to deal with patient anxiety.
  • Patients had access to information about their care and treatment in an easy read format. Information about the service including a guide to meetings, events, and activities was displayed clearly in the reception area where patients tended to congregate.
  • Managers and staff worked together to reduce restrictive practices and provided patients with access to the internet via their own mobile phones.
  • Staff reported a supportive and open culture with colleagues and line managers. Managers were visible and available when staff needed guidance and support.
  • The provider had made changes to the management and meeting structures leading to improved learning from incidents. Managers encouraged staff at all levels to report incidents.
  • The service had recruited a large number of permanent staff including staff with a variety of part-time hours. This meant they had less reliance on agency staff so patients were familiar with the staff supporting them.
  • The service was clean and well maintained. Staff had access to handwashing facilities and to anti-bacterial hand gel. They supported patients to keep their rooms clean and tidy.
  • Patient rooms were well equipped and furnishings in communal areas were suitable, attractive and in good order.

However:

  • When we asked the provider for information concerning whether patient leave had been cancelled or re-arranged due to staff shortages, they were unable to provide the specific dates on which two episodes of leave had been re-arranged.
  • The provider gave us conflicting information about whether two courses were included in their staff mandatory training programme. These were positive behaviour support and moving and handling objects.
  • When we looked at staff records, we found that some support staff had only recently started participating in regular line management supervision and some had not had an appraisal in line with Turning Point policy.
  • When we visited the service, we observed two patients queueing at the door to the medication room so that one patient could see another patient accepting medication. This could have compromised the privacy and dignity of those patients.
  • Not all staff had completed training in the Mental health Act,1983.
  • The provider told us about two complaints they had received, one from a patient and one from a member of the public. However, when we visited, we could not find the records relating to those two complaints in the complaints log.

14 December 2015

During a routine inspection

We rated the Corner House as requires improvement because:

  • Following the review of a serious incident in April 2015, the service identified that the physical intervention approach used was not compatible with the technique agency staff used. This left staff vulnerable in challenging situations and a further incident occurred in October 2015. The service had not yet implemented an alternative approach although plans were in place to train staff in January 2016.

  • Corner House had used 58 different agency staff in the last three months to fill vacancies and support patients who needed increased levels of observation.

  • A patient had missed three doses of his psychoactive medication. Internal processes were not followed which led to the failure to provide sufficient stocks of medication.

  • The psychologist was unable to introduce positive behavioural support plans for patients in line with the latest guidance or facilitate group therapy sessions. This was due to staff vacancies and a lack of stability within the staff group.

  • The service provided a limited choice of meaningful activities and group therapy sessions due to the occupational therapist and psychology assistant vacancies. This meant that patients did not receive individualised tailored activities to promote independence. The activities coordinator and the service user involvement worker provided group activities and engagement.

  • Patient discharge plans were variable. This was because the service distinguished between a discharge plan and a discharge pathway. If staff had identified that a patient was ready for discharge they completed their discharge plan. Otherwise, patients remained on the discharge pathway with a discharge plan that did not identify what steps the patient needed to take to achieve independence.

  • There was a lack of local leadership, which contributed to low staff morale. The service manager was often away from the site promoting the service and the organisation. The clinical lead had recently left. The service had temporarily promoted a permanent member of staff to fill this post. The clinical team did not feel supported by the service manager when they tried to introduce changes to clinical processes.

  • The service had carried an occupational therapist vacancy since April 2015. They had recently been unsuccessful in recruiting to this position due to poor coordination during the recruitment process.

  • Nursing staff morale was low. Permanent staff felt stressed when they worked a shift with agency staff, particularly when there was only one permanent member of staff on duty to three agency staff. This was because patients were reluctant to engage with unfamiliar agency staff and agency staff looked to permanent staff, whatever their grade, for direction.

  • We requested information from the service during the inspection. When the service sent this to us electronically, they breached data protection.

However:

  • The service was clean and well maintained. The housekeeper undertook regular infection control audits and supported patients to keep their bedsits clean and tidy.

  • Patient risk assessments and risk management plans were comprehensive and of good quality. Staff reviewed these on a regular basis or as risks changed.

  • We observed staff interacting with patients during the course of the inspection. They treated patients with kindness and compassion and clearly had good relationships with them.

  • Four patients had a discharge timeline displayed in their rooms. The service had developed these in an easy read format so that the patient could understand them and showed what goals they had to achieve to move along the timeline.

  • Staff handover at the end of each shift was multi-disciplinary, identifying patients’ needs, and focusing on individual risks and safeguarding issues. This meant staff had a clear picture of the care and treatment they needed to provide to their patients.

  • All patients had access to information about their care and treatment in an easy read format. The service displayed this information in the reception area where patients tended to congregate.

24 January 2014

During a routine inspection

People who used the service were given appropriate information and support regarding their care or treatment. We saw people were able to express their views and were involved in making decisions about the care and treatment provided.

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment had been planned and delivered as they preferred. We saw, and were told, that people received the care they needed with their individual preferences taken into account.

People's health, safety and welfare was protected when more than one provider was involved in their care and treatment, or when they moved between different services. This was because the provider worked in co-operation with others.

People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment. We saw there were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.

The premise was in a good state of repair and was clean and fresh. The people we spoke with said they were happy with their rooms and the home's general facilities.

People who used the service and the staff we spoke with said there were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs. We saw people received the support they needed in a timely manner from staff who were competent in their role.

We saw records were in the main accurate and fit for purpose. Records were kept securely and could be located promptly when needed.

17 January 2013

During a routine inspection

People who used the service were given appropriate information and support regarding their care or treatment. The four people we spoke with told us they were able to express their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment.

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment had been planned and delivered as they preferred. People told us they received the care and support they needed and they were happy with how staff supported them.

People received a well balanced diet and were involved in choosing what they ate. Some people also prepared their own meals.

There were systems in place to make sure people received their medications safely.

The premises were in a good state of repair and were clean and fresh. The people we spoke with said they were happy with their rooms and the hospital's general facilities.

Background checks had been carried out on staff before they started to work at the hospital to make sure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. This included ensuring they underwent a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check.

There were systems in place to make sure the hospital was operating safely and correctly. People told us they had been regularly asked about the quality of service they had received and any areas that could be improved.

16 September 2011

During an inspection looking at part of the service

People told us that staff were good to them, and that things were going well at Turning Point ' Moorgate Road. We saw that people had opportunities to participate in a range of activities in a relaxed and supportive environment. One person told us that the activities were good, and another told us that the food was nice.

17 June 2011

During a routine inspection

On the whole people were positive about their experience of using this service. They praised the staff and told us that they understood their care and treatment options. People told us that the hospital manager was approachable if they wished to discuss any issues with him, and they were positive about the accommodation. People had opportunities to be involved in a range of activities within and outside of the hospital, although one person told us he was not satisfied with the activities available to him. One person told us that he did not always feel safe in the hospital.