Grove Park

Updated 26 June 2025

Date of assessment: 6 and 7 August 2024 Grove Park is an independent mental health hospital that provides acute services for adults of working age. The hospital has two wards; Sanderson ward is a 9-bedded ward for men and Westbourne ward is a 9-bedded ward for women. At the time of our inspection, there were four patients on Sanderson ward and no patients on Westbourne ward, with the ward being temporarily closed. This was a decision made by the senior leaders at the service due to lower-than-expected patient referral and admissions. Grove Park also has a nursing unit, which is inspected separately. We assessed all 33 quality statements across the safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led key questions. The service had previously been inspected in April 2024, with Safe and Well-led looked at, and they received an overall rating of Good, with previous inspection ratings also adding to this from an inspection in February 2023. We conducted this assessment so that we could look at all of the quality statements and give an up-to-date rating. The overall rating has not changed, and the service is rated as Good. The service provided safe care. The hospital was clean and fit for purpose. Environmental risks such as ligature risks were assessed, monitored and mitigated. Staff protected people from abuse and improper treatment. Staff completed risk assessments for patients and updated these regularly. Care plans guided safe practice. People were supported to have choice and control and were involved in planning their care. The wards had enough staff to keep patients safe and meet peoples’ individual needs. People were supported to have choice and control and could give feedback on their care. However: The checklist used by staff to carry out and record their findings from the daily environmental checks they completed was not effective in guiding staff what they should specifically look for to ensure the environment and equipment was well maintained. The hospital had a shared communal dining room that was accessed by male and female patients at the same time. However, the provider did not have a policy in place to ensure that patients’ sexual safety was maintained. Incident forms were not always reviewed and signed off by two managers, as per the provider’s own policy and process. Patient care notes from each staff discipline were not all in one contemporaneous record. Psychology, occupational therapy and the doctors recorded their patient notes separate from nurses. Staff told us they were aware of the risks with this, and plans were in place to introduce a new electronic patient recording system which would resolve this. Governance systems and audits were not always effective in identifying or addressing areas for improvement.



Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Compliance



Mental Health Act



Staff understood their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health Act Code of Practice. Managers made sure that staff could explain patients’ rights to them. Staff received and kept up to date with training on the Mental Health Act and had a good understanding of the Mental Health Act, the Code of Practice and the guiding principles. Staff knew who their Mental Health Act administrator was and were positive about the support and guidance given by them on both Mental Health Act, and the Mental Capacity Act. Staff told us that they would always ensure they explained to each patient their rights under the Mental Health Act in a way that they could understand, repeated as necessary and recorded it clearly in the patient’s notes each time. We saw evidence of information documents on patients’ rights available in communal areas for both informal and detained patients. However, on the day of the inspection, we saw that the service had not displayed a notice to tell informal patients that they could leave the ward freely and how to do so. We raised this with staff and immediate action was taken to rectify this. Patients had easy access to information about independent mental health advocacy and the advocate regularly visited the ward to meet with people. Staff made sure patients could take section 17 leave (permission to leave the hospital) when this was agreed with the Responsible Clinician. We saw evidence in care plans of staff requesting an opinion from a Second Opinion Appointed Doctor (SOAD) when they needed to. Staff stored copies of patients’ detention papers and associated records correctly and staff could access them when needed.Mental Capacity Act Staff supported patients to make decisions on their care for themselves. They understood the service policy on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and assessed and recorded capacity clearly for patients who might have impaired mental capacity. Staff received and kept up to date with training in the Mental Capacity Act. Staff told us they regularly discussed capacity and consent during meetings about the patients care and treatment. They also said they would speak to the ward manager or another clinician if they had concerns around capacity. We saw evidence of capacity and consent recorded in care plans, with capacity to consent to treatment obtained at admission and evidence of this being regularly reviewed. We also saw evidence in care plans of staff attempting to support and engage patients in decision processes before deciding that a patient did not have the capacity to do so. When staff assessed patients as not having capacity, they made decisions in the best interest of patients and considered the patient’s wishes, feelings, culture and history. Staff told us that they held a best interest meeting which would involve the patient, the nursing team, the consultant(s) and the patient’s next of kin, where appropriate.

Updated 12 June 2025

Date of assessment: 6 and 7 August 2024

Grove Park is an independent mental health hospital that provides acute services for adults of working age. The hospital has two wards; Sanderson ward is a 9-bedded ward for men and Westbourne ward is a 9-bedded ward for women. At the time of our inspection, there were four patients on Sanderson ward and no patients on Westbourne ward, with the ward being temporarily closed. This was a decision made by the senior leaders at the service due to lower-than-expected patient referral and admissions. Grove Park also has a nursing unit, which is inspected separately.

We assessed all 33 quality statements across the safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led key questions. The service had previously been inspected in April 2024, with Safe and Well-led looked at, and they received an overall rating of Good, with previous inspection ratings also adding to this from an inspection in February 2023. We conducted this assessment so that we could look at all of the quality statements and give an up-to-date rating. The overall rating has not changed, and the service is rated as Good.

The service provided safe care. The hospital was clean and fit for purpose. Environmental risks such as ligature risks were assessed, monitored and mitigated. Staff protected people from abuse and improper treatment. Staff completed risk assessments for patients and updated these regularly. Care plans guided safe practice. People were supported to have choice and control and were involved in planning their care. The wards had enough staff to keep patients safe and meet peoples’ individual needs. People were supported to have choice and control and could give feedback on their care.

However:

The checklist used by staff to carry out and record their findings from the daily environmental checks they completed was not effective in guiding staff what they should specifically look for to ensure the environment and equipment was well maintained.

The hospital had a shared communal dining room that was accessed by male and female patients at the same time. However, the provider did not have a policy in place to ensure that patients’ sexual safety was maintained.

Incident forms were not always reviewed and signed off by two managers, as per the provider’s own policy and process.

Patient care notes from each staff discipline were not all in one contemporaneous record. Psychology, occupational therapy and the doctors recorded their patient notes separate from nurses. Staff told us they were aware of the risks with this, and plans were in place to introduce a new electronic patient recording system which would resolve this.

Governance systems and audits were not always effective in identifying or addressing areas for improvement.

Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Compliance/Mental Health Act

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health Act Code of Practice. Managers made sure that staff could explain patients’ rights to them.

Staff received and kept up to date with training on the Mental Health Act and had a good understanding of the Mental Health Act, the Code of Practice and the guiding principles.

Staff knew who their Mental Health Act administrator was and were positive about the support and guidance given by them on both Mental Health Act, and the Mental Capacity Act.

Staff told us that they would always ensure they explained to each patient their rights under the Mental Health Act in a way that they could understand, repeated as necessary and recorded it clearly in the patient’s notes each time.

We saw evidence of information documents on patients’ rights available in communal areas for both informal and detained patients. However, on the day of the inspection, we saw that the service had not displayed a notice to tell informal patients that they could leave the ward freely and how to do so. We raised this with staff and immediate action was taken to rectify this.

Patients had easy access to information about independent mental health advocacy and the advocate regularly visited the ward to meet with people.

Staff made sure patients could take section 17 leave (permission to leave the hospital) when this was agreed with the Responsible Clinician.

We saw evidence in care plans of staff requesting an opinion from a Second Opinion Appointed Doctor (SOAD) when they needed to. Staff stored copies of patients’ detention papers and associated records correctly and staff could access them when needed.

Mental Capacity Act

Staff supported patients to make decisions on their care for themselves. They understood the service policy on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and assessed and recorded capacity clearly for patients who might have impaired mental capacity. Staff received and kept up to date with training in the Mental Capacity Act. Staff told us they regularly discussed capacity and consent during meetings about the patients care and treatment. They also said they would speak to the ward manager or another clinician if they had concerns around capacity.

We saw evidence of capacity and consent recorded in care plans, with capacity to consent to treatment obtained at admission and evidence of this being regularly reviewed. We also saw evidence in care plans of staff attempting to support and engage patients in decision processes before deciding that a patient did not have the capacity to do so. When staff assessed patients as not having capacity, they made decisions in the best interest of patients and considered the patient’s wishes, feelings, culture and history. Staff told us that they held a best interest meeting which would involve the patient, the nursing team, the consultant(s) and the patient’s next of kin, where appropriate.