Archived: Huntercombe (Granby One) Limited

Updated 5 October 2015

The Huntercombe Hospital Norwich is an independent hospital offering secure facilities for young people detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. [CL1]

The service has four wards used for the care of young people: Coast, Rainforest, Sky and Sahara. The total capacity of the service is 35 beds. At the time of the inspection the bed capacity was restricted to 22 whilst recruitment of staff took place.

Rainforest and Coast wards are low secure units. Sahara was being used as a transitional ward for people who had turned 18 years old and Sky ward is a PICU (Psychiatric intensive care unit).

Updated 5 October 2015

Updated 5 October 2015

• The ward environment on Sahara ward was not fit for purpose and did not promote the recovery and dignity of the people being cared for on the ward.
• There was evidence of the organisations safeguarding policy not being followed which meant the risk to a young person was increased.
• Seclusion records were not being kept to the standard required by the Mental Health Code of Practise.
• Seclusion rooms were did not meet the standard required by the Mental Health Act Code of Practice.
• The ward environments did not meet the criteria for mixed sex accommodation as required by the Mental Health Act Code of Practice.
• Staff reported a lack of support and supervision.
• Medication records had been amended after audits. This meant that the records were no longer accurate about what medication dose had been given and when.
• We observed a lack of meaningful interaction with young people by staff.

However:

• Ward managers and team leaders showed good leadership skills at ward level and we observed them dealing with a variety of issues in an appropriate way.
• Young people told us that they had good relationships with staff.
• Young people reported enjoying psychology sessions and occupational therapy sessions.

Updated 11 March 2015

This hospital provided assessment and treatment for men who were detained under the 1983 Mental Health Act and who had mental health needs and an associated learning disability.

Most patients told us that they felt safe in the hospital and there were clear risk assessments and care plans in place.

Different professions worked effectively to assess and plan care and treatment programmes for patients. The provider had an effective and patient centred advocacy service. There was a pro-active occupational therapy and educational department which provided a good provision of patient focused activities.

Patients told us that staff treated them with kindness and respect. We saw positive examples of the engagement of patients in the running of the hospital.

Senior clinicians had access to governance systems that enabled them to monitor the quality of care provided. This included the provider’s electronic incident reporting system, corporate and ward based audits and electronic staff training record.

But we also found:

• A 25% shortfall in the number of qualified staff and 10% in the number of care workers against the hospital’s own staffing establishment.
• Concerns were identified regarding the safe disposal of stock medication relating to the secure storage of these medicines in the waste bins provided.
• Shortfalls in the attendance of staff at mandatory ‘refresher’ training opportunities. For example at Mental Health Act, relational security and safeguarding of vulnerable adults training. We noted that further mandatory refresher training was planned.
• There was little evidence of the provider’s strategy, vision and values on the ward areas.