St Andrew's Healthcare - Birmingham Also known as 1-121538294

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

People and their relatives told us they were not involved in their care plans.

Processes were in place to plan for people’s discharge from the hospital and there was an allocated team who liaised with the person and community services. However, people and their relatives told us there was a lack of communication about the discharge process and they did not feel involved.

People gave mixed feedback about how their concerns were listened to and most people said they felt they wasted their time in raising concerns particularly in community meetings.

However, care plans included how staff were to support the person to meet their needs including, and where relevant, how to support people with a protected characteristic to meet their needs and preferences. We saw on Lifford ward that equipment and adaptations were provided to meet people’s needs as they aged and were less mobile.

Information was provided in accessible formats and people had access to interpreters where needed. People had access to advocacy services to support them to understand their rights under the Mental Health Act.

People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint about the service and staff knew how to support people when needed to do this.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Most people we spoke with told us they were not involved in their care plans and had not seen their care plan. The provider showed us evidence that this is not the case, and a high percentage of people did have involvement in their care plans. However, if people did not feel involved then the provider’s systems may not have led to meaningful involvement.

None of the carers we spoke with felt involved in their relative’s care and support, although they were invited to multidisciplinary team (MDT) reviews, which demonstrated some opportunity to be involved in their relative's care. One relative told us they would like communication about their relative’s care to improve.

People’s care plans reflected their physical, mental, emotional and social needs. Care plans stated the person was involved but generic phrases were used and not the words of the person about their care and treatment .

On Lifford ward reasonable adjustments were made and equipment provided to ensure people received the most appropriate care and treatment in their older age.

People’s relatives told us that there was a lack of continuity in their relatives’ care. They said the hospital did not communicate well with outside agencies such as the local council regarding the person’s discharge from hospital and the next steps. However, the hospital had in place a dedicated team working with people to facilitate their discharge.

Most people told us they were not aware of their discharge plan however 1 person said they were aware of it, and it was discussed in the meeting with their multidisciplinary team.

There was a team within the hospital called ‘The First Team’ provided by the local mental health NHS trust in partnership with St Andrews Healthcare. They engaged with a person, the ward and the appropriate community teams when discharge was being considered to facilitate discharge and exchange of appropriate information.

People told us that information was provided in a way they understood and met their communication needs. However, people’s relatives told us they did not always receive communication in a way that was timely, or they understood. Some people did not have information about their care plan or their rights to support from advocacy services.

People told us they could have an interpreter present at their multidisciplinary team meetings if they needed this.

Staff told us information was provided in a variety of formats to support people to understand and occupational therapy staff helped to produce these.

Staff knew how to use the interpreting service to support people who needed information in a language they were more familiar with.

Advocates visited the hospital to provide support to people about their rights under the Mental Health Act. Information about how to contact advocates was displayed on the wards.

Information was provided in a variety of formats including the use of symbols and pictures and displayed around the wards.

There was access to an interpreting service that could be used to support people in their multidisciplinary team meetings and phone and video calls with their solicitors or community teams.

People had mixed feedback about how to raise concerns about their care and treatment. Some people told us they knew how to complain but did not think there was any point as nothing changed and they did not feel listened to. Three people told us they did not know how to make a complaint. However, the provider informed us that there are PALS, Complaints and Advocacy posters visible on all wards.

People told us they raised concerns in the ward community meetings. However, they did not feel listened to. Some changes and repairs to the environment had been completed, whilst others were in progress.

Carers we spoke with knew how to raise concerns about the care and service and felt confident to do so.

Staff were aware how to support people to make a complaint. They told us the process for raising concerns and feedback. Staff knew where to find complaint forms and told us they would support people to complete if needed.

We observed people raising issues in their ward community meetings about the environment. Staff on the wards listened to them. However, we found that these issues were not always listened to by the provider and action was not taken to improve the environment for people using the service.

Community meetings were held regularly, often weekly, on each ward. Minutes of these showed these were well attended by people using the service. However, minutes showed that similar themes were often discussed but no action was taken about repairs and maintenance issues which were outstanding actions from one meeting to the next.

An independent advocacy service was available, and posters and leaflets were available on the wards, so people knew how to contact them.

On Northfield ward the “You Said, We Did” board was displayed in the communal area and had information about what was done to show that people’s feedback was listened to. However, on Hawkesley ward this was blank despite several issues raised in feedback during community meetings.

People said they could access equipment, aids and adaptations to enable them to be more mobile and access the environment. All bedrooms included an ensuite shower which people could access.

Staff told us that where wards were inaccessible to people with impaired mobility they would not be admitted there as they would be unable to meet their needs. They said Lifford ward was accessible.

On Lifford ward reasonable adjustments had been made to support people with mobility needs.

The provider had trained staff in equality, diversity and human rights. They had also trained staff in supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people.

People told us they were not empowered by the provider and staff to give their views and understand their rights. They told us they repeatedly discussed the same things in community meetings, but nothing was done, and they felt it was a waste of their time. However, the provider gave us evidence of community meetings occurring regularly on wards which is one of the processes to support people to give their views, alongside My Voice, the patient survey.

Some people did not think their care and treatment promoted equality. They told us that there were not a range of food options to meet their cultural and religious needs. However, the provider gave us evidence that they have a Patient Food forum in place and menus supported a wide variety of food options to meet cultural and religious needs

Most staff had limited understanding of how to support people to promote equality and avoid discrimination. Staff did not know how reasonable adjustments had been made in the hospital to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes.

However, some staff gave us examples of supporting people to celebrate festivals. This included cooking for Diwali and supporting people who were fasting during Ramadan.

People and their relatives told us they did not always feel involved in the discharge planning process.

Managers told us they reviewed where people’s discharge was delayed due to housing and suitable placements for ongoing care and support were not available. They referred people to appropriate agencies.

There was evidence in people’s care records of planning for discharge from the hospital. However, whilst processes were in place these did not appear to be effective based on people and their relative’s feedback.