Archived: The Huntercombe Hospital-Cotswold Spa

We rated The Huntercombe Hospital Cotswold Spa good because:

• Cotswold Spa was a comfortable, safe, modern and suitable facility for patients. There was a secure door entry system to prevent unwanted visitors. Staff managed risk well and Cotswold Spa had a good track record on safety. Staff undertook risk assessments for each patient. They had been trained in safeguarding children and adults, and regularly reported concerns to commissioners and the local authority. Staff knew how to report incidents, managers investigated them and shared lessons learnt with staff. The hospital had safe systems to manage medication. Parents told us the service felt safe.
• Staff provided quality treatment and care and routinely supported patients to address their physical healthcare needs as well as their emotional needs. Different professionals worked well together to assess and plan for the needs of patients. Staff used specialist tools to assess the severity of the patients’ eating disorder. Patients had up-to-date care plans, which focused on treatment, recovery and rehabilitation. To aid their recovery, patients had access to specialist therapies. These included psycho-social, mindfulness, psycho-education, relaxation, coping skills and pet therapy. Patients also had access to fun activities, which included museum and shopping trips as well as opportunities to take part in voluntary work.

• Staff ensured patients and parents were engaged with care plans. Patients were involved in developing their care plans and staff gave them copies. The service routinely sought patient, parent and staff feedback then often made changes to reflect the feedback.
• Managers routinely held supervision and annual performance reviews with staff. Staff had mandatory training, which managers monitored to ensure compliance. The company invested in, and was responsive to, the needs of staff. As a result, staff morale was good. Managers listened to staff and provided them with additional resources when they needed them.
• Most staff had a good understanding of Gillick competence, the Mental Capacity Act and the Mental Health Act. The hospital did not routinely accommodate detained patients but knew how to manage their needs if required.
• There was an ongoing recruitment programme to fill vacancies and managers had recruited a small bank of temporary staff to support the permanent team.
• The service had a good relationship with their commissioners and communicated effectively with them.
• The service was well led and managers had good systems in place so they could audit the quality of care. The senior management team were accessible to staff. The service was committed to becoming accredited with the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ Quality Network for Inpatient Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services.
• Quality Network for Inpatient Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services.

However:

• There had been six occasions in the 12 months leading up to the inspection when there had been two patients on the unit with two night staff deployed to cover both patient areas. Staff had asked the older patient to leave their room and sleep in another room on the younger patients’ section of the building. One patient told us they did not like having to do this.
• Several parents and a patient told us the quality of food was not good when the chef was off duty and staff were often late serving meals in the evenings and at weekends.