Park Lodge

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

Staff worked well together and in collaboration with young people, their carers and external partners. Staff provided person-centred care and completed robust care plans and assessments with young people. Staff encouraged and supported young people to provide feedback on their care and responded to feedback given. The service took concerns and complaints seriously and responded appropriately.

This service scored 79 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Young people were involved in their care and treatment plans; they planned their activities and timetables with support from staff and their choices and opinions were valued and listened to. They had been actively involved in making decisions about the service and gave examples of décor and activity planning. One young person told us they had made their room feel like home, and this had aided their recovery.

Staff were confident that care plans enabled them to deliver person-centred care. If young people consented, family members would also be involved in the development and review of patient treatment plans. Staff completed various nationally recognised tools and assessments when developing treatment plans. People’s needs were understood, and people were able to engage fully in their treatment plans. Staff gave specific examples of person-centred care.

We observed staff engaging with young people in a person-centred way, adjusting their approach according to the patient’s needs. Young people’s rooms were reflective of what we would expect a young person’s room to look like and they had a choice in how they decorated and designed them. Some young people had requested to keep small pets in their rooms and staff supported them to plan and care for these animals.

Staff developed comprehensive care plans that met patients needs. Care plans were personalised, holistic and recovery orientated. The service used a model of care focused on STEP (Stop Things Escalating Please). Care plans were developed collaboratively with members of the multidisciplinary team and showed clear focused goals and outcomes, using the services model of care. Staff reviewed and updated care plans weekly or when young people's needs changed. Care plans and meal support plans highlighted clear strategies on potential behaviours, triggers and strategies on how staff could support young people. Care records demonstrated young person and carer involvement within care plans and at multi-disciplinary meetings. All young people had a patient passport which was very detailed, accessible and person centred to reflect young people’s preferences. Young people had behaviour support plans which recognised the strengths and challenges identified by the young person, their carers and the wider team. Plans were recovery focused and referred to discharge planning throughout. They evidenced therapeutic practice, goal setting and focused on independence.

Young people were encouraged to be involved in the development of their care and treatment plans.

All staff we spoke with were passionate and committed to delivering excellent care. Staff provided 1:1s with young people and built good therapeutic relationships. Young people and staff had created patient passports, so staff knew their needs, likes and dislikes. Young people were encouraged to be involved in the development of their care and treatment from admission to discharge. Young people were able to use the multi-faith room within the hospital, and staff could support young people to access the community to worship.

Partners told us they had regular engagement and were invited to regular care review meetings, 117 reviews and clinical meetings. They met regularly with young people and reviewed documentation. Partners shared how the provider considered and met the needs of people with protected characteristics and gave specific examples of how staff had supported young people and families around cultural perceptions of weight and body image.

Care records demonstrated that people were actively involved throughout their care journey. Young people and carers were routinely involved in their care plans and multi-disciplinary meetings. The young person’s voice was well documented in their own words and records documented when young people did not wish to be involved. Care records showed that young people were offered individual time with their named nurse, and where possible, this relationship was maintained to provide continuity. Staff completed risk assessments on admission and reviewed them regularly, including after any incident. Staff understood diversity and this was implemented within peoples care plans. For example, a young person had been provided with a specific diet which met their cultural needs, and another young people had also been supported to explore and access resources within the LGBTQ community.

Young people knew how to request information regarding their care and treatment. They were had a copy of their care plan, and that information was accessible.

Staff ensured information was shared in a format that was accessible and met young people’s communication needs. All young people had a communication care plan and personal passport to ensure that communication needs and preferences were met. Staff said they did not currently have any young people who required support from interpreters or signers but said managers would access this if needed. Staff told us they made sure young people could access information on treatment, local services, their rights and how to complain.

Staff ensured young people were fully informed about the service from the point of referral. Pre-admission questionnaires were sent to young people and their families to gather information about their needs, wishes and preferences. Information leaflets and introduction booklet packs were shared with young people to ensure they were fully informed throughout the transition. The patient introduction booklet detailed the treatment approach used, how the framework and STEP model was applied in practice, the patient journey, daily routines, patient rights and other relevant information. All wards we visited contained notice boards in the patient areas with a variety of information including rights, how to make a complaint, advocacy and accessing local services. Leaflets were easy read and appropriate to the service user group.

Young people were encouraged to be involved in the development of their care and treatment. They said their wishes and preferences were listened to, and staff supported them to give feedback on their care. People told us they were able to speak with the lived experience practitioner who offered invaluable support and had access to independent advocacy. People also told us of a range of ways in which they could give feedback.

Staff understood the policy on complaints and knew how to handle them. Young people could raise concerns with any of the team and they would try to resolve them as quickly as possible. Young people were supported to make complaints, and information was on display around how to raise a concern or make a complaint.

Young person involvement was evident throughout the hospital. Current and past patients had been involved in planning the decoration of communal areas and had painted elaborate murals on some walls. They had been involved in designing the sensory room and had worked collaboratively with staff in choosing appropriate equipment to meet a range of young person’s needs. Young people had also developed a design for the garden area and had started to paint murals on a brick wall. Staff were visible and available for young people to speak to as and when needed. Staff were observed engaging with young people. Information was on display around how to raise a concern or make a complaint.

A range of processes allowed the provider to gather feedback from young people and their families. Young people had a daily morning meeting where they planned for the day and discussed further plans for the week. Weekly community meetings offered feedback and suggestions could be made. Young people had access to a "How safe do you feel?" QR code. Families were able to give feedback through surveys and an email link. Managers completed regular audits of feedback, and we saw evidence of where changes had been implemented as a result. Managers investigated complaints and identified themes. We saw evidence of investigation of these concerns and saw efforts had been made to ensure that the issues were resolved, and young people and families were given feedback. Managers shared feedback from complaints with staff and learning was used to improve the service. The service used compliments to learn, celebrate success and improve the quality of care.

Young people were encouraged to be involved in the development of their care and treatment. They told us they felt involved in their care and were listened to when they voiced their preferences.

Young people had access to a range of professionals including a dietician, psychologist, speech and language therapists, and occupational therapist. Staff supported young people with specific religious and cultural needs. Specific equipment was also available for young people who had accessibility needs. Documentation was provided in an easy read format and staff told us that interpreters would be made available if required.

Partners told us young people had access to a range of professionals and the service had made staffing adjustments to meet the needs of young people coming into the service. Partners shared how the provider considered and met the needs of people with protected characteristics and gave specific examples of how staff had supported young people and families around cultural perceptions of weight and body image.

Young people were actively involved in making decisions about the service through daily and weekly meetings. Young people were encouraged to give feedback informally when they wished. Young people were involved in making decisions about their care such as activities and meal choices and could raise concerns or issues such as maintenance problems or requests for equipment. Staff reviewed this information and logged actions following the meeting. Minutes were completed in an easy read format and clearly evidenced actions taken and issues resolved in a timely manner.

People’s human rights were protected; they were supported by staff who promoted equality and helped the overcome barriers to care.

The service complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination and had regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics and made reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes. The service provided a variety of food to meet the dietary and cultural needs of individual young people. Staff made sure young people could access information on treatment, local service, their rights and how to complain. Young people were asked if they had any unmet spiritual or cultural needs ad this was documented in their care plans.

Managers reviewed feedback from young people, carers and advocates, complaints and compliments in governance meetings. Young person’s feedback was collated and reviewed regularly with improvements to service provision where needed.

Young people attended and contributed to decisions regarding their future care provision and discharge plans. People told us that they had plans with clear steps that led towards discharge.

Staff told us processes were in place to ensure all relevant individuals were involved in planning and preparing for discharges. This included social care, community teams, housing, and family members if the young person was being discharged back home. Young people were involved in discharge planning meetings and a detailed plan was developed with the young person and partners. This ensured young person’s choices and preferences were always accounted for within discharge plans.

Care plans were recovery focused and referred to discharge planning throughout. They referred to therapeutic practice, goal setting and focused on independence. The service kept a record of all discharges and tracked the young person’s journey. We reviewed discharge information. Since opening, there had been 12 discharges with 2 being delayed due to awaiting placement.