Updated 3 January 2020
Not used
This is an organisation that runs the health and social care services we inspect
Updated 3 January 2020
Not used
Updated 3 January 2020
Our rating of the organisation stayed the same. We rated it as good because:
However:
Updated 19 October 2016
We rated the community health services for adults as good overall because:
There were effective incident reporting systems in place and staff reported they received feedback and learning from these.
Staff had good knowledge of safeguarding procedures and felt supported in raising any safeguarding concerns. Staff had a good understanding of consent and deprivation of liberty safeguards. Consent to treatment was gained in line with legislation.
There were good medicine management systems in place to keep patients safe.
Relevant equipment was available, had been checked and was serviced regularly.
Good infection control systems were in place and staff were seen adhering to them.
The community adult’s service provided care in line with best practice guidance. Staff were given time to attend mandatory training and reported that this was supported by the organisation
Multi-disciplinary and collaborative working was evident throughout the service. Working in the same building as other teams and social care colleagues had improved information sharing.
Feedback from patients was positive.
Patients received care from staff who treated then with dignity and respect. Staff ensured that options were explored to respect the patient’s wishes and requests
The needs of patients were taken into account when planning and delivering services. Staff were flexible
Teams worked together to provide the most appropriate care at the most appropriate time for patients. Care and treatment was coordinated between the community adult services.
Patients were given information about how to make a complaint or raise a concern. There were systems in place to investigate complaints and systems in place for disseminating learning.
There was strong leadership in place. The executive team was visible and staff felt comfortable in approaching them.
A positive culture was evident in nearly all the services we visited.
Staff felt they had a voice and we heard examples of when changes had been made following discussions and involvement of staff members.
However:
Staffing levels were an issue across the community teams and had an impact on staff’s ability to manage caseloads, waiting times and morale.
There was variable access to information and connectivity via the IT system.
There were issues with the waiting times and waiting lists in some specific areas
Updated 19 October 2016
Overall rating for this core service Good
We rated this service as good because:
Plymouth Community Healthcare CIC provided support for children, young people and their families to promote healthy choices. They provided information in a way people could understand and supported families to access health care when they needed to. They identified vulnerable families and offered specialist support for them.
Safeguarding processes were in place and followed by staff with children and young people’s health, wellbeing and safety at the heart of the workforce.
There was a positive attitude among the staff who learned from incidents and comments to improve their service where they could.
Risks were identified and reviewed by senior managers for their action.
Staff were appropriately trained to ensure they were competent to provide care for children, young people and their families and displayed skill and compassion to engage them in their care.
Staff were open and honest with their clients and ensured they were informed of options for their care and helped to make their own choices.
Staff worked with other agencies to support families and ensured appropriate advice was available. Care pathways supported families to access the right support at the right time.
Nationally approved guidance was used to ensure services were safe and effective.
Technology was provided for staff to maintain their safety and share information securely in a timely way.
Professional supervision was available for staff to ensure they were supported in their practice.
Staff engaged with opportunities to contribute to planning how their services were delivered
However
Health visiting staffing levels were decreased in 2016 to meet financial constraints that had been imposed by commissioners. Some health visiting teams with high caseloads were unable to offer vulnerable families additional support using the Maternal and Early Childhood Support Home visiting programme.
Updated 3 January 2020
Our rating of this service stayed the same. We rated it as good because:
However:
Updated 3 January 2020
Our rating of this service improved. We rated it as good because:
However:
Updated 19 October 2016
Overall we rated the organisation as requires improvement for community end of life care services because:
However;
Updated 3 January 2020
Our rating of this service improved. We rated it as good because:
However:
Updated 7 August 2018
Updated 19 October 2016
We rated community mental health services for people with a learning disability or autism as outstanding because:
Updated 19 October 2016
We rated community based mental health services for older people as good because:
However:
Updated 7 August 2018
Our rating of this service stayed the same. We rated it as good because:
However:
Updated 19 October 2016
We rated forensic inpatient/secure wards overall as Good because:
Updated 7 August 2018
Our overall rating of this service stayed the same. We rated it as good because:
However:
Updated 3 January 2020
Our rating of this service stayed the same. We rated it as good because:
However:
Updated 19 October 2016
We rated acute wards for adults of working age as outstanding because:
Updated 19 October 2016
We found the following areas of good practice:
The clinic room used by the staff but was managed by the co-located organisation, was kept locked and was very clean and tidy.
No agency or bank staff were used at this service.
Risk assessments were completed on referral and reviewed regularly.
All staff worked to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance in regards to their detoxification practices.
Mandatory training rate for staff was 100%.
All staff used Skyguard lone worker protection devices.
All care records reviewed had a comprehensive assessment.Care plans were reviewed and updated every three months.
All staff had line management supervision every six weeks with group supervision quarterly this was led by the clinical lead. All staff had staff development plans.
The interactions between staff and people using the service were friendly, respectful and kind.
From accepting a referral, a client was seen within one week by a care manager. At the time of inspection, there was no waiting list for services.
The building had electronic door access for people with restricted mobility.The service had a lift for people with mobility issues that allowed them to access the waiting room and interview rooms.There was an adapted toilet that people were easily able to access.
Staff informed us that they thought the team worked well together and everyone was willing to help and support each other.Staff thought morale was very high within their team and they were all very happy to work there.
Updated 3 January 2020
However: