Kings Norton Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We rated responsive as good.

Staff redesigned the menus based on people’s feedback.

Most people knew how to complain, and staff knew how to respond to these.

However, some people’s care plans did not always show their involvement or include all their needs and preferences.

Some people did not have the information they needed about the hospital in a timely way.

People were asked for their views in community meetings however it was not always clear how these were responded to and if action was taken to address people’s concerns.

The environment was not suitable for people using a wheelchair as they could not access the garden independently.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were not always involved in planning and making shared decisions about their care and treatment. People had mixed feedback about being involved in their care plans and risk assessments. Some people said they were explained to them briefly but not in depth. Some people did not know what was in their care plan. However, some people did know and had discussed this in their multidisciplinary team meeting. One person made a poster as to how to support them and said this was included in their care plan.

People’s relatives were involved in their care and invited to their weekly review meeting with the multidisciplinary team.

Nursing staff told us they did not always have all the information they needed about all a person’s needs from their care plans. They said that information about people’s risks was handed over at the beginning of the shift, but this did not include how to support people to meet all their needs.

We observed that people were involved in their meeting with the multidisciplinary team about their care and treatment. The team also considered the person’s relatives and how they could be involved if the person agreed to this.

People’s care plans did not all fully reflect their physical, mental, emotional and social needs. Some care plans were detailed and included the involvement of the person’s relatives in their care and treatment. The multidisciplinary team considered all the needs of the person and how their illness affected their life including their employment. However, this information was not always included in the person’s care plan that staff followed on the ward.

People did not always receive the most appropriate care and treatment as the service did not make reasonable adjustments when needed. The environment was not suitable for people who used a wheelchair as they could not access the garden independently.

Staff considered the needs and preferences of different people, including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Catering staff redesigned the menu based on people’s feedback about wanting more vegetables and more culturally appropriate foods.

A person with lived experience of mental ill health was employed by the provider and visited the hospital weekly however, some people did not know about their role.

Staff said they did not always have the information needed in people’s care plans about their cultural needs or protected characteristics.

The provider collaborative identified challenges with the visibility of the local mental health trusts outside of the ward round meetings and was discussing this with both providers. These issues were out of the provider’s control.

Some care plans did not reference the person’s cultural needs or their protected characteristics. The environment was not suitable for people with limited mobility as they could not access the gardens easily.

People did not have information about the service in a timely way. Some people said they were not shown around the ward on admission and did not have a booklet or written information about the hospital. One person said this made their first 3 days there difficult and they had to figure out things about how the ward ran with mealtimes and laundry on their own. Another person said if people are admitted on Friday evening or over the weekend, they don’t get a 1 to 1 with a nurse until Monday.

However, 1 person said they were shown around the ward and had the information they needed. We observed staff showing a person around and explaining to them in a way they understood where things were and how to speak with staff.

The manager showed us photographs and posters of activities that people could be involved and the occupational therapy team. These were produced in easier to read formats that included photographs and pictures.

The multidisciplinary team gave people and their relatives information about medicines and how they may affect the person’s physical health so they could make an informed decision about taking them.

Most people knew how to make a complaint. People said they were confident that staff would respond to their complaints. People said the doctor listened to them and their family. One person said staff had given them a link to make a complaint online but were unsure how they would complain if they did not have internet access. People said their requests about food and menus had been listened to.

Staff knew what to do if a person made a complaint to them and how to record this. They knew how to escalate concerns and if needed would support people to complete a complaint form. There was a box for people to put their complaints in on every ward and ward managers responded to these.

We observed staff listening to and involving people across all wards during our visit.

People had opportunities to feedback their experiences of their care and treatment. Community meeting minutes showed that people were asked for their views on the ward environment and their care and treatment. We saw minutes did not include action logs, or these were incomplete. This meant it was not clear whether actions were completed because of people’s feedback. However, the manager showed us the hospital has a spreadsheet for people's feedback which is reviewed regularly as not all requests can be resolved in time for the next community meeting. They said this log ensured they knew what they still needed to address on a longer term.

The provider employed a person with lived experience as a peer support worker. They visited the hospital weekly and had designed a feedback form accessed via a QR code for people to complete on their mobile phones. This was then fed back to managers at the clinical governance meetings. They said this was now being responded to by staff to improve the service.

People could not all access care and treatment in a way that promoted equality. People with limited mobility were unable to access the garden on their own.

However, the occupational therapy team provided information in larger fonts or languages other than English including with pictures and easy read formats. People had access to interpreters where needed.

The provider advised that access to service was based on clinical need with clear criteria agreed with the provider collaborative for admission and moving on criteria.

The provider collaborative worked closely with staff to ensure access to the service for people assessed as requiring the service.

There was limited information around the hospital to reflect people’s diverse needs and protected characteristics. A lift was provided but it was difficult to access the gardens and entrances to wards if using a wheelchair. People using a wheelchair could only access Lakeside ward when using the lift. People were not provided with information about the hospital in accessible formats on admission.

People had access to interpreters and to chaplaincy support to meet their religious needs. A prayer room was provided where people and staff could go to pray.

Staff had regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics and made reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes. Staff told us they had redesigned the menu to provide more culturally appropriate foods but also healthy eating options including snacks.

Staff were aware that the environment was not accessible to people using wheelchairs, so they provided support to help them access the garden and the lift.

The provider trained staff in supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people. Psychologists provided additional training to staff based on individual’s needs. Staff used sensory de -escalation tools with individuals where needed including weighted blankets and fidget tools.

Staff asked people what their preferences were and adapted their care plan to meet and respect their needs. They asked people who identified as transgender what their preference was for the ward they were admitted to.

The provider acted on information about people’s experiences and outcomes. Community meeting minutes showed people gave feedback about their experiences and feedback was provided about action taken from this to show people’s individual experiences were listened to. 'You said we did' boards were in place across the hospital demonstrating how staff have listened to and responded to people's views.

People gave mixed feedback about being involved in planning for their discharge from hospital. Some people were aware of their plans and said they were involved in this. However, other people said this was not planned and they did not know anything about this.

Staff gave mixed feedback about involvement in people’s discharge plans. Some staff said these were developed within the multidisciplinary team meeting which ward staff did not always attend. However, registered nurses said they discussed these plans with people in their 1:1 sessions and then when needed fed back their wishes to the multidisciplinary team meeting.

Some people’s records showed that people were supported in planning for their discharge from the service. However, some people’s records did not have any information about this.

Some people’s records showed a detailed plan which they had been involved in developing about their return from authorised leave from the hospital. For example, one person had identified with staff that they would find this difficult and so planned to reduce their anxiety on return.

We did not see any records about people’s wishes for their end-of-life care.