Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS 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

Staff developed holistic, recovery-oriented care plans informed by a comprehensive assessment. The service managed beds well so that a bed was always available locally to a person who would benefit from admission and patients were discharged safely once they no longer needed inpatient care.

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.

Patients said there were quiet areas on the ward and a room where they could meet visitors.

Patients could make a phone call in private and had access to outside space. Most patients said that the food was of a good quality, and that they could make hot drinks and snacks 24 hour hours a day.

Staff we spoke with knew the patients and their individual needs.

Ward teams had effective working relationships with external teams and organisations.

Staff held regular multidisciplinary meetings to discuss patients and improve their care.

Staff made sure they shared clear information about patients and any changes in their care, including during handover meetings.

Staff completed a comprehensive mental health assessment of each patient either on admission or soon after.

Patients had their physical health assessed soon after admission and regularly reviewed during their time on the ward.

Staff developed a comprehensive care plan for each patient that met their mental and physical health needs.

Staff regularly reviewed and updated care plans when patients' needs changed.

Care plans were personalised, holistic and recovery-orientated.

Patients described not waiting long before being admitted to the ward when they needed treatment. Patients said their bed was always available when they returned from leave and they had not been moved between wards. Some patients were aware of their plan for discharge.

Staff understood the diverse health and care needs of patients and the local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Staff planned for patients’ discharge, including good liaison with care managers however some patients were delayed due to challenges in securing social care packages and onward funding for placements.

Wards across the trust had systems in place for people to access the service and had pathways in place to aid patient’s discharge. As part of routine monitoring of the service, the integrated care board (ICB) had raised no concerns to the commission in relation to this quality statement.

Patients we spoke with confirmed they were provided with information on their care and treatment. Most patients had met with or were aware of their rights to access an advocate.

Staff provided accurate and up-to-date information in formats that was tailored to individual needs.

The provider supplied accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Patients we spoke with knew how to complain or raise concerns. Two patients had raised concerns or complaints since being on the ward. Patients had felt listened to by staff.

Staff described how patients could share feedback, concerns or complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff understood the policy on complaints and knew how to handle them.

At the time of the inspection there were active complaints in the process of being investigated which were within the timelines for responding and completing. Patients could attend regular community meetings, meet with their named nurse or the ward manager or other senior leaders .

Staff knew how to acknowledge complaints and patients received feedback from managers after the investigation into their complaint.

Managers investigated complaints and identified themes Managers shared feedback from complaints with staff and learning was used to improve the service.

The service used compliments to learn, celebrate success and improve the quality of care.

No patients described a concern in accessing the service. The service provided a variety of food to meet the dietary and cultural needs of individual patients. Patients had access to spiritual, religious and cultural support.

Staff made sure patients could access information on treatment, local service, their rights and how to complain. Staff knew how to access information leaflets available in languages spoken by the patients and local community.

Managers knew how to source interpreters or signers if required.

The service had processes in place to ensure patients can access the care, support and treatment they need when they need it.

Most wards service could support and make adjustments for disabled people and those with communication needs or other specific needs. However, Juniper ward could not accept patients requiring a wheelchair due to the layout of the ward, with corridors and doorways not being wide enough.

No patient we spoke with felt they had experienced discrimination from the service or staff responsible for their care and treatment.

Staff listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People did not experience discrimination and staff worked hard to provide equity in access to care and treatment. They made reasonable adjustments where required and listened to people’s concerns to improve the service.

We received no negative feedback regarding this quality statement. Patients had discharge plans in place where appropriate.

Staff described how patients were supported to plan for important life changes, such as discharge from the ward to an onward placement or hospital, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

We identified no concerns during this inspection on the services processes for planning for the future. The service held a regular meeting which reviewed barriers to patient discharge and reviewed all patient’s recovery progress, known as the ‘Red to Green’ meeting.