Pine House Rehabilitation Unit

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

This means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. We assessed one quality statement from this key question. The service was supporting people to manage their health and wellbeing. Patients had opportunities to give feedback on the service and suggest areas that could support them living healthier lives. The service had implemented a physical health lead and reported a positive relationship with a local GP to support patient’s physical health. However, a diabetic patient did not have a specific care plan for their diabetes which would inform staff of how to appropriately manage and monitor their diabetes effectively. Whilst staff we spoke to were aware of their responsibilities regarding this, it was only through word of mouth and not written down formally. Physical health folders contained inconsistent recording, incomplete documentation and gaps in some ongoing checks.

This service scored 71 (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.

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

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.

Patients could give feedback through community meetings and feedback forms which included them making suggestions on aspects such as food and activities. Within the community meeting minutes, there was a section where staff provided feedback from the last meeting including any updates on changes that had implemented by the provider based on patient feedback, requests and suggestions. The occupational therapy team also conducted surveys with patients around the work that they did in the service and any specific goals or areas that the team could support patients with. Some of the responses to these surveys noted that the occupational therapy team were assisting patients with cooking skills and becoming more independent; whilst other forms stated they wanted support from the team with helping them prepare for discharge.

Staff described how patients would be supported to live healthier lives. Staff noted that healthy eating could be an issue and noted that the service always had healthier options on the menu. Staff also explained that certain patients had restrictions on takeaways which were risk assessed on an individual basis. Staff noted that the occupational therapy staff promoted and did a lot of work around activities on and off the wards for patients, which included fitness groups and activities. The new hospital manager noted that, although the service was not currently undertaking smoking cessation work, this was a future goal for them to implement.

We reviewed 5 care records during the assessment, including the care record for a diabetic patient. The patient with diabetes had a physical health care plan present which referred to their condition but was not detailed or personalised and did not provide appropriate guidance for staff delivering care in relation to their diabetes. The patient did not have a specific diabetes care plan. Staff that we spoke to could describe how they would manage and monitor the patient’s diabetes, however, this was only through word of mouth between staff and was not specifically written down anywhere. The wards had individual physical health folders. We reviewed the folder on Aspen ward which contained records of physical health observations along with individual patient physical health documentation. The physical health observations were inconsistently recorded with some gaps being present and the last sheet in the folder was dated 03/11/2024. There were also examples of the observations being recorded on individual pieces and scraps of paper rather than the standard form that was used. We reviewed the documentation for 2 individual patients in the folder which also included some gaps and incomplete documentation. The service had a physical health lead who supported with physical health monitoring along with the creation of physical health care plans and providing reports to the MDT. Managers described that the implementation of this role had improved how the service had managed the physical health of patients. The provider worked with a local GP to manage any physical health issues and the prescribing of medication in relation to this. Managers also advised that any specialists that may be required, such as podiatry or dieticians, could be accessed as required. Two patients in the service were being seen regularly by podiatry.

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.