Three Valleys Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

We assessed one evidence category for one quality statements in the safe key question and found areas of good practice. The scores for this area has been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was requires improvement.

Though the assessment of this area indicated areas of good practice since the last inspection, our rating for the key question remains requires improvement. The service used systems and processes to safely prescribe, and monitor medicines. We did not speak to staff, or patients as part of this assessment process.

This service scored 50 (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 Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safeguarding during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe and effective staffing during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The service used systems and processes to safely prescribe, administer and record medicines. Staff regularly reviewed the effects of medications on peoples mental and physical health. We reviewed six patient records that clearly demonstrated that people had been assessed by the Second Opinion Appointed Doctor with appropriate reviews and monitoring of their medicines. We noted that multidisciplinary team meetings recorded the involvement of patients in the discussion and their views were documented where this was appropriate. Physical observations were carried out after the administration of depot injections, where the person permitted this. If the person declined physical observations, their breathing was still observed and recorded. The capacity to consent to treatment was documented and where the person lacked this capacity an appropriate second opinion was sought. Clear discharge summaries were in place when people had accessed external services. Where "when required medicines" were administered this was documented and monitored. There was no evidence of "when required medicines" being used either excessively or inappropriately. However, for one person the information available did not give clear information about which medicines should be used as first line or second line or how this was to be escalated. One person had a controlled drug prescribed for pain relief but this was not included in the information about "when required medicines".