Meadow Park

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Care plans that were reviewed were comprehensive, personalised and holistic. Staff at the service outlined the need to ensure that the patient was involved in their care planning. Discharge planning was in place.

We saw that the Occupational Therapist role was very involved in ensuring the activities and therapies at the service were effective in ensuring a positive outcome for the patients. This was verified by the patients themselves who said they enjoyed and valued their therapy time. There was access to education that had led to university access and successful completion of courses. Patients had individual occupational therapy sessions

There was psychological input from a clinical psychologist and a nurse consultant, neither of whom were employed at the service, but had a contract to implement psychosocial interventions. This input was seen to be actively in use.

The tools used to assess risk, mental health and physical health were shown to be followed and utilised to patient advantage. All levels of staff were involved in the use of these tools, leading to an overall knowledge base of patient requirements and conditions. The service had links to dental and GP surgeries that were maintained and noted to be well utilised.

We saw that multi-disciplinary meetings were regular and included relevant professionals, staff and the patient. These were recorded and updated on a regular basis, and within policy requirements.

We saw that the Mental Capacity Act and the Mental Health Act were required reading and learning as part of the mandatory training at the service. We noted that all training was up to date, with any outstanding training booked in. Knowledge of these Acts was shown during interview, and we saw that the relevant aspects of the Acts were implemented when and if required.

Regular supervision and appraisals took place for staff.

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.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

Patients we spoke with reported they could get information and advice about their health, care and support. None of the patients reported concerns about physical health treatment. Some of the patients we spoke with reported access to a GP. The range of activities provided to help patients live as they want to including access to the local community, shopping and cooking / baking. One patient reported accessing university courses and also stated they had completed a course on nutrition.

All patients had an occupational therapy assessment and all patients had a related care plan. The occupational therapist was involved in helping develop, review and score the recovery programme. The range of treatments available included patient therapy groups two or three times a week. One group would focus on physical health and the other groups were more functional groups (cooking, turn taking, dynamics, hearing voices). Patients also had individual OT sessions to work on specific skills that would be of use in the community (such as cooking). The occupational therapist also supported patients with benefit money and patients were given £2.50 a week to buy ingredients to cook lunch. Activities available included cooking groups, well being groups, walking groups, a daily coffee group to promote social inclusion and weekly lunchtime and tea groups. There were other onsite activities such as board games, creative writing and quizzes. The occupational therapist also helped patients link in with community resource centres. The occupational therapist used recognized assessment tools and outcome measures.

There was psychological input from a clinical psychologist and a nurse consultant, both employed outside of the service. They described their psychosocial intervention input, and this was reflected in care records. Staff confirmed that all patients had relevant risk assessments including health assessments, this was confirmed in care records. They followed a well-documented process for each patient, and could also refer patients into a complex case advisory group. Staff told us they assisted in applying interventions, and were in turn assisted by psychological input. Physical health needs were promoted, and a physical health lead was present at the service, with access to a GP as and when required. Staff were particularly proud of the use of a virtual reality headset used for relaxation and de-escalation. All aspects were regularly audited.

Minutes from provider level input were reviewed. These minutes included communication with external commissioners that showed that communications both within and without the service were in place and functioned well. The external commissioners were positive about the communication aspects of their working relationship.

We saw that National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance was embedded into policies that were used effectively to guide the service. The resuscitation policy outlined the requirements regarding NICE guidance, including NICE (2007) CG50 Acutely ill adults in hospital and NICE (2015) NG10 Violence and aggression, as well as NPSA (2008) Resuscitation in mental health and learning disabilities .

All staff at the service were required to fully complete an induction to verify their employment at the service. The induction checklist outlined the requirements for each member of staff to perform their role at the service and to show that they had done the expected competencies. This included the overview of IT systems relevant to the role, as well as other standard, expected courses for a rehabilitation services. Staff records confirmed this had taken place and was up to date.

Other policies were reviewed and were found to be up to date and comprehensive, including the Learning and Development policy, as well as the Governance policy for the service.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.