Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We assessed a total of 2 quality statements from this key question. We have combined the scores for these areas with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Our rating for this key question remains Good. The service maximised the effectiveness of people’s care and treatment by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what is important and matters to them. This is done in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

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.

Carers told us that they were involved in the care planning for their relatives and were regularly invited to meetings regarding the care and treatment. Patients had no specific feedback on this area. We observed staff working with patients on their life story which was a book that contained key information about the patient’s life such as where they worked, their favourite food, etc.

All staff we spoke with informed us that the daily handovers looked at each patient, covering their current risk level and any key care elements for each day. The majority of staff identified this as the main way they receive information about patient risks. Staff informed us that patient observations were risk assessed each day, physical observations were done daily along with diet and fluid monitoring when appropriate. Staff members informed us that Mental state examinations and care plans should be updated on a weekly basis. However, this was not being done due to staffing pressures.

Reviewing records for the service we found that not all care plans were personalised, holistic or recovery orientated. Risk assessments for patients were hard to locate on the electronic records system, there were inconsistencies of where these assessments were stored. We observed morning handovers and found that they were comprehensive covering each patient, their needs and any specific appointments or care required for the day. Staff were able to ask questions around each patient and demonstrated clear knowledge of the patients.

People had no specific feedback on this area.

Care and treatment aimed to follow best practice; however, this was not always possible due to a lack of psychology available.

Each ward we visited took part in clinical audits. The service had systems and processes in place to ensure that patients were receiving care, treatment and support that was evidence based and in line with good practice guidelines. The service had a NICE oversight subgroup, staff were updated on changes to the guidelines via email. The service demonstrated an appetite for quality improvement with the creation of quality improvement dedicated roles on the wards and lines of work around falls.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.