Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We rated Responsive as good. We assessed 3 quality statements. Staff worked hard to provide equity in access to care and treatment. They made reasonable adjustments where required and personalised care to meet individual needs. Patients completed questionnaires and gave verbal feedback to staff on their experience. However, some carers felt they had not been given an opportunity to share feedback on the service.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Five people using services had been asked to complete a questionnaire to provide feedback about the service, and all told us they were able to give verbal feedback to staff. However, only 3 out of 6 carers we spoke with had been offered the chance to give feedback on the service.

Staff told us that patients in the community had access to an advocate, carers and families were also able to access and advocacy service. Staff told us that patient feedback and complaints were shared across the staffing team, staff said the service was very transparent and would discuss complaints. Staff said they also received a lot of carer feedback, all feedback was reviewed in governance meetings. In Peterborough staff said they have at least 10 patient surveys a month to review and 5 carers, and they were achieving their targets for feedback every month. Staff were able to give examples of involving carers and different ways to support people to give feedback.

We observed that not all reception areas had made feedback forms/box available. A service manager explained however that paper forms were removed during COVID and now these are sent out by email. Prior to the appointment the team had contacted the patients to gain consent for CQC to present, this consent was then sought again at the start of the appointment. Treatments and medications were discussed with the patient and their views sought and listened to.

The service had systems and processes in place for collecting and monitoring feedback from patients and carers. The service gathered, collated and monitored patients experience feedback. We saw examples of these. A variety of topics were included such as, staffing, quality of the service, medication, involvement in care and treatment and overall experience.

Staff ensured everyone could access the service and offered appointments in people’s homes if they were unable to visit an office. However, people and their carers told us that it was difficult to access any support out of hours and some people had not had a good experience of the first response service for out of hours support. People were offered home visits when too poorly, or if they were unable to attend centres.

Staff gave mixed feedback on waiting times and their caseloads and whether they were manageable. For example, staff at Huntingdon told us there were low numbers of patients waiting to be allocated and that they were mostly achieving the 2 weeks to treatment target and caseloads were within the Trust recommended size. However, staff from other teams gave differing views. Staff told us that patients’ individual communication needs were always considered. Staff said they had used translators and hearing loops where needed. Staff said it could sometimes be difficult to get translation services, but the service provided information leaflets for patients in different languages and formats. Staff said there was a lift for people who needed it. Staff told us they also looked at the environment to make sure it was suitable for autistic people, for example, did the music in reception cause a distraction. We saw sensory and fidget toys, had been made available at the Cambridge location. Staff said they collected feedback from patients through feedback forms, and they had a good uptake of patients completing them. Staff gave examples of personalising care according to needs. Staff shared examples of supporting patients who spoke different languages and said these resources were easy to access. Although leaflets in other languages were available on demand and interpreters on the phone/virtually, 1 staff member told us face to face interpreting service were no longer available due to what they believed to be financial pressures. A range of information leaflets were made available in the Huntingdon service and we saw a sensory box was available.

We did not collect the evidence to score this evidence category.

There was a service access policy in place. The policy outlined the key interactions between the services and its service users in the delivery of their care. The policy states it supports the delivery of consistent clinical care across services ensuring that service users with similar needs are managed, in a consistent manner unless there are clear and justified reasons for them not to be. The policy sets out that assessing the impact on equality of decision-making, policies and practices is an important part of complying with the general equality duty. The Trust will undertake an analysis of all key decisions from an equality perspective making sure there is no adverse impact on people with protected characteristics. An Equality Analysis will be undertaken on this policy.

Staff ensured everyone could engage fully in care and treatment and offered different communication methods to help them engage in the most inclusive way based on their needs. A patient we spoke with who was unable to read or write gave us examples of imaginative ways that staff communicating with them, for example using audio conversations and videos.

Staff told us they had ensured that people with protected characteristics were given the support they required, by having discussions with them, asking patients what they needed and being mindful. Staff told us they encouraged patients to give their reviews and understand their rights, staff said they advocated for patients, and communicated things on an individual level, staff ensured patients knew how to access advocate services and PALs. Staff said they were consistently talking to patients about their rights and told us that patients were encouraged to complete feedback forms. Staff told us they encouraged empowerment for people by giving choice, supporting people to make informed decisions, and discharging at the right time. Staff said they encourage people to achieve and become more independent.

The service had an equality, diversity, and inclusion policy in place to guide staff on how to ensure people were treated with respect and dignity. Staff had completed mandatory equality, diversion and inclusion training. At the time of the assessment, the service compliance rate for equality and diversity training was above the service target for all teams. The Trust had systems and processes in place for collecting and monitoring patients and carers experience data.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.