Cheshire and Wirral Partnership 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

Observations of care showed staff provided care in a person-centred way and responsively accommodated individual needs. However, we did see some inconsistencies in case note documentation. Staff were able to share information with patients in an accessible way taking in to account any additional needs. Services safely managed referrals and transfers. Staff had a solid understanding of equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights and were proactive in preventing discrimination.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Patients reported good relationships with key workers and felt they knew them well. Patients felt involved in decisions about their care and individual needs and preferences were supported.

Initial assessments took a holistic approach and looked at the whole person. Alongside medical treatment, staff had a good knowledge of the additional services that they could offer patients, including those provided by third sector organisations. Staff were able to share information in different formats and/or support patients in different environments depending upon need.

Observations showed that staff knew patients well and were able to provide treatment in a person centred way. Additional needs were responsively accommodated by staff. Teams displayed a positive multi disciplinary approach to ensuring the individual needs of complex patients were met by the most suitable service.

Our review highlighted inconsistencies in the completion of aspects of case notes, most notable was risk and safety plans. However, we did find some evidence of documentation that was patient centred and holistic. Advocacy services were available at all sites. Support for education and employment was also available.

Patients built up good relationships with their key workers and felt they knew them well. There was good continuity of care and staff were able to visit patients at home or see them in clinic dependent upon their needs and preference.

Staff reported that assessment processes were holistic and took into account all of a patient’s needs. They were able to provide information in different formats where required. Staffing levels were sufficient to sustain continuity of care and staff were able to support patients positively through transfer processes. There was positive collaboration within the MDT as well as external services to ensure care remained consistent and transitions were managed well. Referrals were promptly triaged, and full assessment was completed within 4 weeks. Key workers could be allocated promptly.

No concerns were raised by partner organisations.

There were appropriate systems to support those waiting for full assessment. Observation of meetings onsite showed good evidence of joint working with external teams.

Patients had information shared with them around their care and treatment. This information was offered in a more accessible format when required. Where appropriate carers were provided with information around their loved one’s care and treatment. They were also kept up to date with any changes.

Staff had a resource of information in different formats. They also knew how to access interpretation and translation services when required. Staff were also able to see patients at home or at clinics dependent upon preference and could also refer to advocacy services when required. Autism ambassadors sat within all teams working with staff and patients to improve the experience of autistic people of care in services.

There were appropriate resources available to provide patients with the information they needed. Interpretation and translation services were available both remotely and in person. There were reasonable adjustment proformas available to support neurodivergent and autistic people during health appointments and appropriate guidance for staff. On inspection clinic environments appeared fit for purpose. Appropriate information was displayed in waiting and clinic rooms across all sites.

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.

Patients reported good relationships with keyworkers and felt that they knew their individual needs well. Observations of care reflected this and showed responsive support for individual needs.

Staff clearly held a good understanding of equality and diversity guidelines and reported that discrimination was not tolerated and concerns were always proactively acted upon. Staff also felt confident raising concerns. They also had good working knowledge of Mental Health Act /Mental Capacity Act and patients' rights.

Processes were in place to protect equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights. Buildings and clinic rooms were accessible via wheelchair and disabled parking was onsite. CTO reviews showed the Mental Health Act Code of Practice was followed and people’s right were well protected.

Patients felt informed and supported to make decisions about their care and had regular discussions with keyworkers about their treatment. Carers had decision about care and treatment shared with them where appropriate.

Staff completed risk assessments as part of initial assessment and updated through the care journey. Staff reported that safety plans and advance statements were completed at initial assessments but that these were normally undertaken through patient choice. Inconsistency in the completion of safety plans was reflected in the case notes.

There were processes in place to support patients should they wish to make an advance statement.