Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS 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

We assessed 2 quality statements in the responsive key question and found areas of concern. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection in July 2023, which was good. Though the assessment of these areas indicated areas of concern since the last inspection, our rating for the key question remains good. We found that senior leaders were responsive when they were made aware of environmental safety issues and concerns that related to poor quality of patient care. However, patients and relatives told us they did not find the service was responsive to their concerns and complaints. We saw evidence that patients had complained and made suggestions for improvements consistently with limited action taken by staff.

This service scored 75 (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 Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

A patient said that while care review meetings did take place and they were invited to talk about their care, there was lack of transparency from staff about their progress and discharge plans. Cary ward is a specialist ward for patients with Autism and Learning Difficulties. The ward had notice boards and activity boards displayed with pictorial references to aid communication. However, we discussed the boards with the patients who told us that they did not accurately reflect the activities that were provided and they were not updated often.

Most of the relatives we spoke with mentioned the service's high use of agency staff. Relatives told us they did not always feel involved in their relatives care planning. Relatives also told us there were sometimes communication barriers with agency workers when phoning the wards and they lacked confidence that their complaints or concerns would be actioned appropriately. Some relatives told us they had made complaints to the service and were frustrated with the time it took to resolve their concerns. For example, a relative told us they had reported some health concerns they had about their relative and they felt this was disregarded by staff. The patient later was later admitted to hospital and required treatment for their physical health problem.

Patients told us that they had a pictorial activities board, but not all the activities had happened. For example, weekend activities such as film nights and poetry. We saw evidence of patients making requests for different activities and food options however, these requests were ongoing and we could not see action taken by staff to meet these requests over a period of weeks. Patients told us they felt better supported when permanent staff were on shifts but there was a lot of shifts that relied on agency workers.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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