The Care Quality Commission
  • Mental Health
  • Independent mental health service

Woodleigh Community Independent Hospital

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

28 Elmwood Road, Croydon, Surrey, CR0 2SG (020) 8239 6033

Provided and run by:
Glancestyle Care Homes Limited

All Inspections

4-5 July 2022

During a routine inspection

Our rating of this location stayed the same. We rated it as good because:

  • The service provided safe care. The environment was safe and clean. Staff assessed and managed residents’ risks. They minimised the use of restrictive practices, managed most medicines safely and followed good practice with respect to safeguarding.
  • Staff developed holistic, recovery-oriented care plans informed by a comprehensive assessment. They provided a range of treatments suitable to the needs of the patients and in line with national guidance about best practice. This included prescribing oral antipsychotic medication in conjunction with psychosocial interventions and providing specialist therapies to meet the needs of patients with obsessive compulsive disorders.
  • The staff team included a full range of specialists required to meet the needs of patients, including nurses, doctors, a clinical psychologist and occupational therapists. Managers ensured that these staff received supervision and appraisal. Staff worked well together as a multidisciplinary team and worked closely with other people involved in residents care such as the GP, care co-ordinators and commissioners.
  • Staff understood and discharged their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
  • Staff treated residents with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and understood the individual needs of each resident. They actively involved residents and families and carers in care decisions.
  • Residents said that the care and treatment they received was good and that staff behaved kindly towards them.
  • The service managed residents’ progress to more independent accommodation well. They worked closely with residents’ families, commissioners and care co-ordinators to facilitate this. The service also provided a safe, stable and homely environment for residents who stayed there for many years.
  • The service was well-led and the governance processes ensured that the service ran smoothly. Leaders had clear oversight of the safety and quality of care provided.
  • Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They said the service provided opportunities for development and career progression. They could raise any concerns without fear.

However:

  • Staff did not dispose of all out-of-date dressings in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. Staff did not label medicine bottles with the date the bottle was opened.
  • Staff did not always update risk assessments after all incidents. Managers did not always discuss incidents with staff to ensure they had a good understanding of why incidents occurred and how they could be avoided.
  • Not all staff had received specific training in residents’ clinical conditions
  • The service did not hold regular team meetings with all staff
  • Records of clinical governance meetings did not include details of discussions, conclusions and actions agreed.

17 - 19 July 2017

During a routine inspection

We rated Woodleigh Community independent Hospital as good because:

  • During our last inspection the service did not meet the Department of Health guidance on same sex accommodation. During this inspection, we found the provider now met the same sex accommodation guidance and was successfully protecting the safety, privacy and dignity of patients.

  • Staff promoted the recovery and wellbeing of patients through positive risk taking and the provision of individualised activities and outings. This helped to build patients’ confidence and skills to be able to manage in a less supported environment when they were ready to progress.

  • Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding and knew what to report as an incident. Incident data was regularly analysed. Staff reflected on individual incidents, and identified learning or changes to the service to prevent similar incidents reoccurring.

  • Staff effectively managed and monitored patients physical health needs. Many staff had experience working in physical healthcare services. Specialised training to enable staff to manage patients with specific conditions, such as diabetes, was delivered by specialists.

  • Staff members took ownership of their training needs. Multidisciplinary team members came together to share knowledge about specialist areas to upskill the whole staff team.

  • Staff had a clear understanding of the individual needs of patients and knew their individual risks well.

  • Staff morale was high. Staff were well supported by each other and the hospital manager. Staff were part of a cohesive multidisciplinary team and all members contributed equally to discussions about how the service should be run, regardless of their role.

  • All staff took responsibility for audits. The system of audits was structured and organised. It gave the hospital manager comprehensive, accurate oversight of the service and assurance that it was delivering good quality services.

  • Patients were always consulted with about decisions that needed to be made about the service and the way in which it operated.

  • All patients were partners in their care and had a good understanding of their care plans.

However,

  • The corporate senior management team at the In Mind hospital healthcare group were not visible to those working at the service.

17-18 February 2016

During a routine inspection

We rated Woodleigh Community Independent hospital as good because:

  • The hospital monitored and managed ligature risks appropriately. Staff were aware of potential ligature risks and monitored and documented patients’ mental health daily. The hospital had completed a comprehensive risk assessment of ligature points. Staff reviewed patient risk assessments regularly and updated these at the multidisciplinary team at each clinical review.
  • The service rarely used agency staff. The service had a number of regular bank staff. These staff knew the patients, and the policies, procedures and routines of the service, which maintained continuity of care and treatment.

  • Staff demonstrated a good knowledge of safeguarding adults and children. The hospital offered specialist training to staff. This included training in mentalisation based therapy and attachment theory while the chef had taken a nutrition course. There was high morale amongst staff and all staff we spoke with felt well supported locally.

  • The hospital had good medicines management practice. There was a clear process for supply and transport of medication and staff were aware of this process. Medication was stored securely and medicine administration records were fully completed and recorded allergy status.
  • Staff undertook a comprehensive assessment of patients prior to admission. Patients had physical examinations and mental health assessments. The service specialised in taking patients with physical as well as mental health needs. Most senior nursing staff were registered adult nurses and mental health nurses who had experience working in general and mental health services.
  • Staff reviewed patient’s care plans regularly. Care plans were person centred, individualised and recovery oriented. They addressed patients’ needs, were detailed and specific. The service offered a good range of psychological interventions and followed best practice within NICE recommended guidance.

  • The hospital had effective working relationships with other organisations. Commissioners and the local GP spoke highly of the service.
  • Patients were complimentary about the service. Patients rated food, cleanliness, activities and the overall experience highly. We observed many kind and compassionate interactions between staff and patients. Staff spoke to patients with respect and were aware of their individual needs.

However:

  • The service did not comply with guidance on same-sex accommodation. Male and female bedrooms were located on the same corridor and did not have separate lounges. Female patients had to walk past the bedrooms of male patients to reach the bathroom. This meant that the privacy and dignity of patients could be compromised.

  • There was not a designated quiet area or room that patients could meet visitors.
  • The service had a complaints policy. However, this did not tell patients how they could appeal if they were unhappy with the complaint response.

  • Staff did not feel connected with the provider. The majority of staff who returned questionnaires in the 2015 staff survey did not feel that senior directors recognised the work they did.

16 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We carried out this unannounced inspection alongside a Mental Health Commissioner who focussed on detained patients. The Commissioners findings are available on the CQC website as a separate report.

We were able to talk to nine out of the 20 people resident on the day of our inspection. We were also able to speak to a relative who was visiting, numerous staff which included ancillary staff and managers.

People who used the service told us that they felt safe living at Woodleigh. One person said, 'staff are good, they're always there'.

All the paperwork that we looked at was up to date and relevant. People who used the service knew that they had care plans and what was written in them. People also had their own individual 'recovery plans folder'; The folder contained copies of the persons own information.

People felt that they could express their views about the care they received and that they would be listened to. This was either via the weekly residents meeting, through individual key working sessions with staff or adding their own comments to the care plans. People told us that if they wanted to make a complaint, there was a form that was easily available for them to complete or, that they would talk to staff.

7 December 2012

During a routine inspection

Two inspectors completed this unannounced inspection. We were able to speak to six out of the 23 people resident, numerous staff including ancillary staff, a relative and a stakeholder both visiting on the day of the inspection.

The people that we spoke to at Woodleigh Community were very satisfied with the care and support that they were receiving. Two individuals made a point of seeking us out to tell us how good the service was. One person said, 'It's the best placement I've been in' someone else told us that 'Inmind (the provider) are a good team, staff are great'.

People felt that they could express their views about the care they were receiving and that they would be listened to. This was either via the weekly residents meeting, through individual key working sessions with staff or adding their own comments to the care plans. One comment we received was, 'they give you independence and listen, they talk to you like an adult and not a patient.'

Staff were well trained and supported to undertake their work. In turn people who use the service spoke positively about the support that they received from staff. One relative told us, 'couldn't praise the staff enough'.

All the paperwork that we looked at was up to date and relevant. People who use the service knew what was written about them. Everyone had the option of keeping key documents for themselves in a 'recovery folder'.

Mental Health Act Commissioner reports

Each year, we visit all NHS trusts and independent providers who care for people whose rights are restricted under the Mental Health Act to monitor the care they provide and check that patients' rights are met. Immediate concerns raised by patients on those visits are discussed, if appropriate, with hospital staff.

Our Mental Health Act Commissioners may carry out a number of visits to each provider over a 12-month period, during which they talk to detained patients, staff and managers about how services are provided. In the past, we summarised themes from the visits and published an annual statement followed by the provider's response where applicable. We are looking at different ways to indicate the outcomes of our monitoring in the future.