Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health 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

People told us and we observed that they were involved in their care plans and making decisions about their care and treatment. They had regular meetings with staff where they could raise concerns. However, people said, and minutes showed that there was not always meaningful action taken by staff when people raised concerns. People’s relatives told us they knew how to raise concerns if they needed to.

This service scored 50 (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 Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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.

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

People told us they had a meeting every morning where they discussed the plan for the day, and they can raise any concerns they have and there were regular community meetings where they had an opportunity to raise concerns but did not feel action was always taken from these. People said they were involved in their care planning and decisions about their care and treatment. People knew about how to contact an advocate for support if needed and found this helpful. People said they were involved in planning activities and did the things they enjoyed doing. Relatives said they knew how to make a complaint if they needed to.

There was a board of ‘mutual expectations’ that was designed by staff and people who used the service. This was in response to people’s concerns about staff attitudes and reflects the ‘Safewards’ model (this model was designed with interventions to reduce conflict and containment within mental health services). There was information displayed on the ward about how to contact an advocate. We observed in people’s multidisciplinary team meetings that the person was listened to and involved in making decisions about their care and treatment.

Community meeting minutes reviewed showed there were ongoing themes discussed about staff attitude to people. However, there was little evidence of actions taken to address this apart from the ‘mutual expectations’ board displayed on the ward. People were given an opportunity to raise complaints and concerns at regular community meetings, however some themes discussed were about staff attitude but there was not evidence of meaningful response or action to address this. People’s care plans and risk assessments showed the person was involved. Records showed that the person was involved in discussing arrangements and planning for their discharge. Records showed that people had one to one time with nursing and occupational therapy staff to discuss their care and treatment.

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.