02 November 2021, 12 November 2021
During a routine inspection
We rated it as good because:
The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe provided mandatory training in key skills to all staff. Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse and staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse, and they knew how to apply it. The service had suitable premises and equipment and looked after them well. Staff completed and updated risk assessments for each patient and kept detailed records of patients’ care and treatment.
Staff provided good care to patients. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, supported them to make decisions about their care. Key services were available with flexible times throughout the week.
Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients. Feedback from patients was extremely positive.
The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for a diagnostic procedure.
Managers across the service promoted a positive culture that supported and valued staff, creating a sense of common purpose based on shared values. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients.
However:
The service did not always control infection risk well. It had carpets in clinical areas despite the organisation identifying this infection control risk in an infection control audit in February 2021.
The service did not monitor the care and treatment it provided based on national guidance and evidence of its effectiveness.
The service did not always operate effective governance processes. The service did not have effective processes in place to ensure policies were kept up to date, it did not have effective processes in place to monitor employment checks for clinicians working at service in line with the organisations own practicing privileges policy and the service did not have effective processes in place to risk assess patients and monitor their treatment outcomes who were being seen by visiting consultants under hosting arrangements.