Archived: The Glenside Hospital for Neuro Rehabilitation

Updated 1 March 2019

The Glenside Hospital for Neuro Rehabilitation is operated by Glenside Manor Healthcare Services Limited. The Glenside hospital came under new ownership in August 2017. The current company owner provides similar services at other locations in the South, and collectively they are known as the ‘Raphael Group of Hospitals’. These additional locations were not inspected as part of this inspection.

At the time or our visit the registered manager had been in post at Glenside Hospital since 8 February 2018. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The service was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) for the following regulated activities:

Treatment of disease, disorder or injury. Since May 2011.

Assessment or medical treatment for persons detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. Since April 2012.

Diagnostic and screening procedures. Since May 2011.

The service was previously inspected in June 2016 when it was under different ownership; at that time the inspectors rated the effective, caring, responsive and well-led domains as good, and the safe domain was rated as requires improvement. In August 2017 the service had come under new leadership and now formed part of the Raphael Hospital group. We did not rate the service at this inspection because it was a focused inspection, which means the previous 2016 ratings will remain unchanged at this time.

We carried out a focused, unannounced inspection on 8 November 2018 to follow up on concerns that had been raised with us, and we looked at elements of the safe, effective and well led domains. At the time of our inspection, the CQC adult social care inspection team were undertaking a comprehensive inspection of social care sites, which provide a range of services to complement the neuro-rehabilitation and the neuro-behavioural pathways. These will be reported on separately although will share some themes around those systems that are centrally managed.

Following the inspection CQC formally requested under Section 64 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 to be provided with specified information and documentation by 16 November 2018. We requested further information from the unit manager to be provided by 30 November 2018. We received some of the information requested but not all.

Updated 1 March 2019

We rated The Glenside Hospital for Neuro Rehabilitation as good because:

• Staff involved patients and their families in developing their care plans, and ensured that the patients risk assessment was linked into their care plan. These care plans were holistic and relevant for the patient. The hospital had implemented emotional wellbeing assessments.

• Ward managers could adjust staffing levels to meet the clinical need of patients. The hospital used agency staff that were familiar with the ward and provided service specific training to ensure they could meet patient’s needs. The hospital had taken steps to manage staff turnover and staff morale was high.

• The hospital had a wide variety of healthcare professionals and a wide range of facilities, including ample outdoor space, quiet waiting areas and phones that patients could use in private. Professionals used recognised rating scales to measure patient’s progress and discussed this in multidisciplinary meetings.

• The majority of patients reported that they had received good care and reported positive staff attitudes. We saw that staff were positive and engaging when they spoke with patients. Staff helped to ensure patients had access to activities that were meaningful to them and they took steps to help patients feel comfortable when they were moving between wards in the hospitals. They also helped with patients discharge so that their needs would be met after their stay in hospital.

• There were new clinical leads within the hospital and we saw that they had provided good leadership for staff. The hospitals had some robust governance systems that allowed managers to monitor performance and develop quality improvement plans to help ensure good quality care.

However:

• We found that the rapid tranquilisation (the use of medicines to calm/lightly sedate the patient, reduce the risk to self and/or others and achieve an optimal reduction in agitation and aggression) policy was not always clear, and that staff could not demonstrate that they had completed physical observations following administering the medicines. In response, the hospital quickly changed the policy and issued further training to its staff to ensure compliance with national guidance.

• Systems did not always ensure that relevant information was recorded. For example, that staff recorded that they had conducted physical health checks. Staff on Nadder ward had not logged some checks to say they had recorded the temperature of the medicines fridge.

Updated 1 March 2019

The hospital provided services for people with acquired brain injury. This was a focussed, unannounced inspection. We looked at safety and well led and part of effectiveness for this service. We did not rate this service.

Updated 21 September 2016