Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

Good: This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

Staff developed care plans around patients’ individual needs and preferences. Care plans were personalised based on each individuals’ recovery and well-being. Most patients said they were involved in their care plans in some way. However, the patient voice within the ‘about me’ section of care record was inconsistently completed across the wards. This had been highlighted in care record audits.

Patients and carers could attend and were involved in weekly multidisciplinary ward reviews. Not all patients said they had copies of their care plans, but said they could speak to staff about them and knew how to get one if they wanted one.

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with their families and carers. Carers and families views were noted in patient care records. Consent was sought from patients about whether they wanted their carer involved or not.

Staff from Brocton and Norbury PICU had developed resources to improve their engagement with carers. This included a specific carers ward introduction letter and follow up questionnaire to help staff better understand carers experience. Carers had the opportunity to attend the weekly carers forum hosted by the quality improvement lead.

Patients had access to chaplaincy and spiritual support was available in different faiths. Patients could attend places of worship in the community if they had prescribed leave.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed and information governance systems ensured confidentiality of patient records.

Staff told us information was shared in a format that was accessible and met patients’ communication needs. Staff were able to get support from interpreters or signers when required, especially for multidisciplinary care meetings.

Posters and information were available on the wards about treatments, local services, patients’ rights, advocacy and how to make a complaint. Information could be produced in different languages when required.

We spoke with 9 carers. Feedback on how well staff communicated with them varied. Some said communication was very good although some said they had to seek out and wait for staff to speak with them. One carer said they found it difficult to get through on the telephone, another said staff were always so busy and they had to wait for long periods outside the office door until they were available to speak with. However, all carers said they could participate with ward reviews and decision making.

The trust had processes in place to manage complaints. Patients said they felt listened to by staff and were able to raise a concern if required and staff would provide feedback. Staff said they knew how to handle complaints appropriately and efficiently and managers provided feedback on the outcome of investigation and acted on any findings.

Patients attended a weekly community meeting where they could raise any issues and staff fed back on actions from previous concerns.

There had been 2 complaints for this service from 1 November 2024 to 31 January 2025. One had not been upheld and the other was still being investigated. Both were regarding Pine ward however there were no specific themes.

All the wards were on the ground floor and were easily accessible. Each ward had at least 1 larger room with an adjustable bed for patients with a physical disability or mobility problems. There were also accessible bathrooms. There was adequate medical cover day and night and a doctor could attend the ward quickly in an emergency. The hospital sites were within a reasonable travelling distance to the local acute hospitals. Staff ensured patients were involved in discharge planning and this was regularly discussed in multidisciplinary meetings. Staff ensured patients had access to post-discharge care such as community mental health services and crisis services. Relevant healthcare professionals such as care coordinators were invited to discharge planning meetings to ensure good information sharing and continuity of care. A discharge enablement worker helped support and prepare patients for discharge back home. At the time of our assessment, the average length of stay across all the acute wards and Norbury PICU was 39 days. Discharge was sometimes delayed when a patient required a more complex package of care and one or more external agencies were involved to help facilitate the discharge. In the last 12 months, there were 8 delayed discharges from the wards. There were 7 at the Redwoods centre and 1 at St George’s hospital. Delays were due to availability of suitable ongoing placements or accommodation and funding.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. Patients feedback was collated and reviewed so the service could make improvements when required.

Staff gave us examples of when they had co-produced changes to the service with patients. Across the wards, there were many examples of patients’ artwork on the walls and even within the windows.

Quality care record audits had highlighted that staff were not always fully completing equality, diversity and inclusion information within the patient care record. However, the transformation project had been tasked with making improvements with the quality and consistency of records completion with staff. This was still ongoing at the time of our assessment.

On Brocton ward, we reviewed the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) form for 1 patient. There were 2 forms held with the patient’s medicine chart; one stated the patient was for resuscitation, one stated the patient was not for resuscitation. The patients care record implied that the patient was not for resuscitation. Staff said the patient was for resuscitation. It was not clear from the patient record or the medicine chart which could cause confusion during a medical emergency. We informed staff on the day of our assessment and the trust rectified the issue as soon as possible, ensuring that staff were aware of the process and also re-shared wider within the trust.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs.