• Organisation
  • SERVICE PROVIDER

Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust

This is an organisation that runs the health and social care services we inspect

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings
Important: Services have been transferred to this provider from another provider
Important:

We served a s29A warning notice on Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust on 20 June 2024 for Lack of effective governance systems, ligature risks and fire safety concerns, medicines not managed safely, ward security systems not consistently keeping people safe, infection prevention and control risks and staff not up to date with mandatory training.

Report from 3 December 2024 assessment

Ratings - Long stay or rehabilitation mental health wards for working age adults

  • Overall

    Requires improvement

  • Safe

    Requires improvement

  • Effective

    Requires improvement

  • Caring

    Requires improvement

  • Responsive

    Good

  • Well-led

    Requires improvement

Our view of the service

Dates of assessment: 1 to 2 May 2024 and 10 to 13 June 2024. We carried out an unannounced assessment of the long stay or rehabilitation mental health wards for working age adults as they had not been inspected since 2018. At the last inspection in 2018, the core service was rated good overall. During this assessment we visited 10 wards across 8 locations. We assessed 8 quality statements across the safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led key questions. We have combined the scores for these areas with scores from the last inspection. Our overall rating is requires improvement. We identified 4 breaches of the legal regulations in relation to person-centred care; safe care and treatment; premises and equipment; and good governance. At this assessment, we found inconsistent recording in patient risk assessments, safety plans and risk management plans. There were gaps in fire safety checks and ligature risk tools. We identified concerns with the environments, along with potential infection prevention and control issues. The service was not always effective because patient care plans were not always clear as to how the patient was involved with and kept informed about their care planning. Care plans did not always reflect identified needs for patients and how staff should support them with these. The service did not always ensure that people’s care was delivered in line with best practice and supported their ongoing rehabilitation. We found ineffective governance processes to ensure that the services had appropriate oversight and monitoring of the care and treatment being provided to patients. However, patients and carers reported positive feedback about their care and told us that they were treated with dignity and respect. The service was involved in development programmes to make improvements to the service. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at the assessment.

People's experience of this service

We spoke with 24 patients during the site visits. Patients that we spoke to were generally positive about the staff and felt that they were treated kindly and in a caring manner by staff supporting them. We observed mostly positive interactions between staff and patients. Patients generally felt safe on the wards and described feeling informed and involved in their care and treatment. Patients were mostly aware of how to raise any concerns or complaints and felt confident that they would be able to do so. Patients at Anson Road and Acacia ward at Park House raised some concerns about the cleanliness of the communal areas. Patients at Anson Road also described issues with the noise of the ward and a lack of privacy. Two patients raised a concern that staff did not always knock on bedroom doors before entering. The inspection team observed this happening whilst on-site at locations. We also spoke with 21 carers or family members. Most carers or family members gave positive feedback about their relatives’ care and treatment and described being involved in care and discharge planning. Carers and family members spoke highly of ward staff describing them as friendly, helpful, and supportive. Carers and family members knew who they could approach to request information or seek help, this included all members of the clinical and wider ward team. Carers and family members felt their relatives received good care and understood how this was individualised to their relative’s needs. They recognised how relatives received support to live healthier lives, and believed their relatives felt safe in ward environments. Several relatives commented about high staff turnover, which disrupted consistency of care, however they felt the staff teams managed this well and carers and relatives were able to maintain good relationships with staff members.