Archived: Chelmer and Stort Mental Health Wards

During this inspection we spoke to approximately six people and 16 staff in detail. We reviewed 12 assessment and treatment records and trust wide policies and procedures. We observed a community meeting of the people using the service.

The service was safe. Risk assessments and management plans were available for people and the environment to keep them and others safe. People we spoke with told us they felt safe.

The service was effective. We noted that clear assessment and care plans were in place for each person using the service to ensure people's needs were being effectively met. We found staff had received relevant training. However we found that further some improvements were needed for recording individual documenting capacity assessments on Chelmer ward. This was brought to attention of senior trust staff.

The service was caring. Most people gave us positive feedback about staff and the care given.

The service was responsive. People and staff were encouraged to give feedback on the quality of the service in various ways such as meetings and surveys and we saw evidence of actions taken by the trust following this feedback.

The service was well led. Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of service provision.

Before people received any care or treatment we found that they had not always been asked for their consent. Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider had not in all cases acted in accordance with legal requirements.

We were told that people were actively encouraged to participate in their individual treatment programme and that they accessed specialist therapies and other support from staff. We saw people's needs were assessed, however care and treatment was not always planned and delivered in line with people's individual care plans.

None of the people we spoke with expressed any concerns about their safety. We saw staff dealt with challenging situations calmly and effectively. The provider ensured that people who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse.

Staff were trained and supported sufficiently by way of appraisals and supervisions. Staff reported that there were good opportunities for training. This demonstrated to us that people were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of service that people received.