Annual Statement - August 2010 - Care Quality Commission
Annual Statement - August 2010 - Care Quality Commission
Annual Statement - August 2010 - Care Quality Commission
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Mental Health Act <strong>Annual</strong> <strong>Statement</strong> <strong>August</strong> <strong>2010</strong><br />
Arbury Court Psychiatric Secure Services<br />
Partnerships in <strong>Care</strong><br />
Executive Summary<br />
This statement reflects the findings of visiting Mental Health Act (MHA)<br />
<strong>Commission</strong>ers in the period between March <strong>2010</strong> and <strong>August</strong> <strong>2010</strong>. Where<br />
appropriate this statement includes consideration of the responses given by the<br />
provider to those visits. During the reporting period the <strong>Care</strong> <strong>Quality</strong> <strong>Commission</strong><br />
(CQC) has visited Arbury Court Psychiatric Secure Services on seven occasions,<br />
visiting six wards, interviewing 28 patients in private and others in informal groups<br />
and scrutinising 17 sets of records. The <strong>Commission</strong>er would like to thank the unit<br />
managers and staff for their support and assistance during the visits.<br />
Purpose of the facility<br />
Arbury Court Psychiatric Secure Services, Partnerships in <strong>Care</strong> is an Independent<br />
Hospital. Its primary function is to provide a range of secure facilities for men and<br />
women who have a diagnosis of mental disorder as defined under the 1983 Mental<br />
Health Act who require continuing care and treatment.<br />
The service comprises of 74 beds, of which there are two 15 bedded medium secure<br />
wards and four 11 bedded female wards of varying security. The clinical<br />
environments are supported by therapeutic facilities including fitness suite, social<br />
club, rehabilitation kitchen and other multi-purpose facilities. In summary:<br />
• 2x15 bedded Male Medium Secure Wards.<br />
• 1x11 Medium Secure Women’s Wards.<br />
• 1x11 bedded Enhanced Low Secure Women’s Wards.<br />
• 2x11 bedded Low Secure Women’s Wards.<br />
Giving in total:<br />
• 44 female beds of varying security<br />
• 30 Medium Secure Male beds<br />
The service provides gender specific services and is only considered appropriate at<br />
18 years or above.<br />
Main Findings<br />
The following points highlight those Mental Health Act issues raised by<br />
<strong>Commission</strong>ers on visits and is drawn from the data presented in annex A. The<br />
detailed evidence to support them has already been shared with the provider through<br />
the feedback summaries and is not repeated here. For further discussion about the
findings of this <strong>Annual</strong> <strong>Statement</strong> please contact the author via the <strong>Care</strong> <strong>Quality</strong><br />
<strong>Commission</strong>’s Mental Health Operations Office located at The Belgrave Centre,<br />
Nottingham.<br />
Relationships with the provider in the reporting period<br />
The previous <strong>Annual</strong> <strong>Statement</strong> was received positively by the managers and an<br />
action plan published. This has been monitored by visiting Mental Health Act<br />
<strong>Commission</strong>ers on their visits during the reporting period and considerable progress<br />
noted in a number of areas. There are currently no feedback summaries awaiting a<br />
response.<br />
There have been two constructive meetings with the hospital managers together with<br />
informal meetings at each visit with Responsible Clinicians (RCs), nurse managers,<br />
MHA administrator, social workers, occupational therapists, activity organisers and<br />
catering managers.<br />
Progress on recommendations in the 2009 <strong>Annual</strong> <strong>Statement</strong><br />
The team at Arbury Court has always been keen to receive feedback about the<br />
quality and nature of services provided and have endeavoured to respond to findings<br />
in a timely manner. Previous <strong>Annual</strong> <strong>Statement</strong>s have been well received by<br />
managers and staff. During visits the <strong>Commission</strong>er has undertaken assessments of<br />
progress against those issues highlighted previously. There has been much good<br />
progress. However, there are some concerns that remain live issues during this year<br />
that require attention. These will be highlighted.<br />
Mental Health Act and Code of Practice Issues<br />
Consent to Treatment<br />
Concerns in this area may contribute to an understanding of the CQC’s evaluation of the Provider’s compliance with Regulatory<br />
Outcome 2c and 9E<br />
Section 58 Statutory Consultees: This remains an ongoing concern. The<br />
<strong>Commission</strong> would remind managers of their responsibility to ensure by audit that<br />
the role of the statutory consultee is carried out as per the Code of Practice.<br />
Part IV compliance: There were two instances noted during the reviews where the<br />
Responsible Clinician had not recorded the assessment of the patients’ capacity to<br />
consent and discussion surrounding the treatment.<br />
Legal documentation<br />
It should be noted that the maintenance of legal documents both in Mental Health<br />
Act administration office and at ward level were kept in an exemplary way in a<br />
separate folder, easy to access and in date order. Good liaison was evidenced<br />
between the mental health act administrators, clinicians and ward managers.<br />
Clinical notes: There was evidence that RC’s met regularly with each patient both<br />
individually and with a multidisciplinary team. Assessments, treatment plans and
eviews were timely and there was good evidence that the requirements of the Code<br />
of Practice relating to assessment of capacity prior to treatment were carried out and<br />
recorded. The care pathway and regular reviews and audits relating to the use of the<br />
Mental Health Act were available and showed high level compliance.<br />
Section 132 – Information to Patients<br />
the Essential Standards of Safety and <strong>Quality</strong> Concerns in this area may contribute to an understanding of the CQC’s<br />
evaluation of the Provider’s compliance with Regulatory Outcome 1a<br />
Information to patients was clear, regularly and appropriately reviewed both in writing<br />
and supported in discussion by the ward staff, evidenced in notes and Mental Health<br />
Act files. Additional evidence was found in the patients’ appeals to the Tribunal<br />
Service.<br />
Section 130A – Independent Mental Health Advocacy (IMHA)<br />
Concerns in this area may contribute to an understanding of the CQC’s evaluation of the Provider’s compliance with the<br />
Essential Standards of Safety and <strong>Quality</strong> Regulatory Outcome 1a<br />
Patients were informed of their rights to the use of advocacy and an IMHA. These<br />
were provided by Rethink, who provide the ongoing advocacy services. To ensure<br />
the service meets the needs of the patients there are regular review meetings with<br />
the Social Work Department at Arbury Court and attendance at the wards is<br />
monitored via the electronic entry system, which logs all staff entering and exiting the<br />
service.<br />
Seclusion and the management of Violence<br />
the Essential Standards of Safety and <strong>Quality</strong> Concerns in this area may contribute to an understanding of the CQC’s<br />
evaluation of the Provider’s compliance with Regulatory Outcome 4Q [Seclusion] Restraint [Regulation 11]<br />
A seclusion facility is available. A suitable policy is in place and training regarding<br />
management of violence is part of the training requirements for all staff.<br />
Observational policies and regular review by the RC was evidenced in notes.<br />
Violence does occur and the <strong>Commission</strong>er noted that staff were skilled in deescalation<br />
techniques and in reducing violence.<br />
Other issues<br />
Safeguarding patients<br />
Bullying: This was complained of by patients during the visit. A problem that is clear<br />
from the notes and policies that the manager, clinicians and staff take seriously and<br />
use observational skills to minimise these incidents. Staff management of bullying<br />
and educational input by staff was observed. It was noted that there had been<br />
safeguarding meetings within the wards, with both managers and <strong>Commission</strong>ers.<br />
Patients’ complaints: There was one active complaint during the period under review,<br />
which has now been investigated and resulted in the relevant staff being the subject<br />
of a disciplinary hearing, being demoted and to have further development and<br />
training. Complaints are rigorously looked into. In general, patients spoke highly of<br />
staff and care.
Staffing levels: Staffing is said to be near establishment. However, it is noted that<br />
there is a high use of bank and agency staff. Patients speak of the insecurity that<br />
they feel with new staff, particularly the females. There are apparently an over<br />
abundance of male staff both contracted and in the bank and agency. One patient<br />
spoke of having one to one observation by a male agency staff at night. This is<br />
unacceptable. Managers have since agreed to robustly monitor the use of bank and<br />
agency staff.<br />
Obesity: This is clearly a problem within the male and female wards. The hospital<br />
has taken a multidisciplinary approach to this problem and is well represented at the<br />
regional meetings. Menus have been reviewed. The hospital shop now stocks<br />
healthier options. Medical assessments highlight issues.<br />
Health lifestyles: The hospital is well represented at the regional lifestyle groups,<br />
where good practice is shared. A staff team has been identified to drive forward the<br />
work. A practice nurse has been appointed to focus on physical health working with<br />
a GP, RC and the patients. Metabolic syndrome assessments were carried out.<br />
Temperature, pulse and respiration, blood pressure, blood reviews and levels were<br />
all part of the push forward to improve and encourage healthy lifestyles.<br />
Activity levels/care plans: There have been positive and pleasing efforts to increase<br />
the levels of activity for each patient, though uptake has been poor. New attempts to<br />
motivate patients with regard to an increase of activity is being approached and<br />
supported by the whole multidisciplinary team; some promising improvements have<br />
already been noted. Access to the gym has been a problem and is to be reviewed.<br />
Deaths whilst detained under the Mental Health Act: During the reporting period<br />
there has been one patient’s death. The CQC are awaiting reports of any internal or<br />
external investigations and the outcome of the Coroner’s inquest is expected. Action<br />
plans and any lessons learnt should be shared with the CQC.<br />
Recommendations and Actions Required<br />
1. Patient Activity: The hospital should continue its work in increasing activity plans<br />
for each patient and monitor patient activity levels and in promoting healthy<br />
lifestyles.<br />
2. Dining arrangements: The hospital should ensure appropriate dining<br />
arrangements are available both in dining rooms and ward areas so that the<br />
patient experience is improved.<br />
3. Use of gym: The hospital should continue its work in reviewing the current gym<br />
facility and ensure that appropriately trained staff are available to support patients<br />
in using the equipment. The provider is requested to inform theCQC of the<br />
outcome of review.<br />
4. Staffing arrangements: The hospital should continue to monitor use of bank and<br />
agency staff, ensuring that gender appropriate staff are available for each ward.
5. Safeguarding patients: The hospital should continue to meet the safeguarding<br />
requirements to ensure that all appropriate observation and management of<br />
aggression and violence can limit bullying and safeguard patients.<br />
6. Statutory consultees: The hospital should ensure that the discussion between the<br />
Second Opinion Appointed Doctor (SOAD) and the statutory consultee regarding<br />
the care plan should be recorded as per the Code of Practice.<br />
Forward Plan<br />
The CQC will continue to visit Arbury Court in the coming year to monitor the<br />
operation of the Mental Health Act and to meet with detained patients in private.<br />
Progress will be actively followed up by the <strong>Commission</strong>er in the forthcoming 12<br />
months against issues raised in this statement. They will work with other colleagues<br />
in the CQC to further develop an integrated approach to the service provision.
Annex A<br />
The quantitative data will only apply to visits completed from 1 April <strong>2010</strong><br />
which is the time that the new data started to be captured uniformly.<br />
Visits to Arbury Court Psychiatric Secure Services<br />
Date Ward<br />
Patients<br />
seen<br />
Patients<br />
in groups<br />
Records<br />
checked<br />
8 March <strong>2010</strong> Oakmere Ward<br />
12 April <strong>2010</strong> Appleton Ward 5 0 3<br />
13 April <strong>2010</strong> Heathfield Ward 6 0 3<br />
19 April <strong>2010</strong> Cinnamon Ward 4 0 3<br />
20 April <strong>2010</strong> Oakmere Ward 3 0 3<br />
29 April <strong>2010</strong> Rosewood Ward 5 0 2<br />
30 April <strong>2010</strong> Delamere Ward 5 11 3<br />
Totals for the trust: 28 11 17<br />
Findings from Visits – Environment and Culture YES NO N\A<br />
If the door is locked is there evidence that informal patients are informed of their right to leave the<br />
ward and given the means to do so?<br />
Are you satisfied that there is evidence that informal patients are free to leave the ward in line with<br />
legal requirements?<br />
Do patients have the ability to lock their rooms securely and the means to do so? [answer no if in<br />
dormitories]<br />
0 2 4<br />
0 1 5<br />
6 0 0<br />
Do patients have lockable space which they can control? 6 0 0<br />
Are arrangements to cover viewing panels in bedroom doors adequate to protect patient privacy? 6 0 0<br />
Are curtains or other window coverings in patient bedrooms adequate to protect privacy from people<br />
outside the ward?<br />
6 0 0<br />
Does the ward provide single gender sleeping areas, toilets, bathrooms and lounges? 5 0 1<br />
Is there a ward phone for patients’ use? 6 0 0<br />
Is it placed in a location which provides privacy? 5 1 0<br />
Are there any circumstances under which patients may have their mobile phones? [answer N/A if<br />
HSH]<br />
Do patients have an opportunity to participate in influencing the ward they are on via such<br />
mechanisms as community meetings, patients’ councils etc?<br />
4 2 0<br />
3 0 3
Findings from Document Checks YES NO N\A<br />
Were the detention papers available for inspection? Did the detention appear lawful 16 0 1<br />
Was there either an interim or a full AMHP report on file? 16 0 1<br />
If the NR was identified was s/he consulted, If there was no consultation, were reasons given? 4 5 8<br />
Where appropriate was all psychotropic medication covered by a T2 and/or T3? 16 0 1<br />
Was there evidence a capacity assessment at the time of first administration of medication following<br />
detention?<br />
16 1 0<br />
Was there evidence a discussion about consent at the time of first administration of medication<br />
following detention?<br />
16 1 0<br />
Was there a record of the patient’s capacity to consent at 3 months? 16 0 1<br />
Was there a record of a meaningful discussion about consent between the AC and the patient at 3<br />
months?<br />
16 0 1<br />
Was there evidence that the RC had advised the patient of the outcome of the SOAD visit or an<br />
explanation why not?<br />
Was there evidence of discussions about rights on first detention and an assessment of the patient’s<br />
level of understanding?<br />
5 0 12<br />
16 0 1<br />
Was there evidence of further attempts to explain rights where necessary? 17 0 0<br />
Was there evidence of continuing explanations for longer stay patients? 16 0 1<br />
Is there evidence that the patient was informed of his/her right to an IMHA? 9 8 0<br />
Are the patient’s own views recorded on a range of care planning tools? 16 0 1<br />
Was there evidence that the patient was given a copy of their care plan? 16 0 1<br />
Is there evidence that the patient signed / refused to sign their care plan 10 0 7<br />
Was there evidence of care plans being individualised, holistic, regularly reviewed and evaluated? 17 0 0<br />
Is there evidence of an up to date risk assessment and risk management plan? 17 0 0<br />
Is there evidence that discharge planning is included in the care plan? 15 1 1<br />
Were all superseded Section 17 leave forms struck through or removed? 15 2 0<br />
Was there evidence that the patient had been given a copy of the section 17 leave form? 15 1 1<br />
Are the timescales, frequency and conditions for the use of leave unambiguously specified? 16 0 1<br />
For patients in hospital less than a year, is there evidence of a physical health check on admission? 15 0 2<br />
For patients in hospital over than a year, is there evidence of a physical health check within the last<br />
12 months?<br />
If the patient’s medication was authorised on a T3, was there a record of the discussion<br />
between the SOAD and the statutory consultees [enter 0 for none, 1 for one consultee, 2<br />
for both consultees, and n/a if no T3]?<br />
15 0 2<br />
0 1 2 N\A<br />
0 3 3 11
Annex B – CQC Methodology<br />
The <strong>Care</strong> <strong>Quality</strong> <strong>Commission</strong> visits all places where patients are detained under the<br />
Mental Health Act 1983. Mental Health Act <strong>Commission</strong>ers meet and talk with<br />
detained patients in private and also talk with staff and managers about how services<br />
are provided. Since November 2008, <strong>Commission</strong>ers have also been meeting with<br />
patients who are subject to Community Treatment Orders. As part of the routine visit<br />
programme information is recorded relating to:<br />
• Basic factual details for each ward visited, including function, bed occupancy,<br />
staffing, and the age range, ethnicity and gender of detained patients.<br />
• Ward environment and culture, including physical environment, rights to leave,<br />
patient privacy and dignity, gender separation, choice/access to<br />
services/therapies, communication facilities, physical health checks, food, and<br />
staff/patient ratios, smoking facilities, staff patient engagement, diversity and<br />
cultural sensitivity, cleanliness and upkeep of the ward, fresh air and exercise,<br />
physical safety and environmental risks.<br />
• Issues raised by patients and patient views of the service provided, from both<br />
private conversations with detained patients and any other patient contacts<br />
made during the course of the visit.<br />
• Legal and other statutory matters, including assessing the providers<br />
compliance with the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Code of Practice including<br />
scrutinising the supporting documentation, records, policies and systems. The<br />
<strong>Commission</strong>er reviews the basis and evidence of detention, including<br />
compliance with Sections 132, 132a (information to the detained patient about<br />
their rights), Section 58 and 58A (consent to treatment), the provision of the<br />
Independent Mental Health Advocacy (IMHA) service, the use of the Mental<br />
Capacity Act Deprivation of Liberty safeguards, Section 17 and 17A (leave and<br />
Community Treatment Orders) and reviews the evidence of the patient’s<br />
participation in their treatment by reference to the <strong>Care</strong> Programme Approach<br />
documentation. The patient’s access to physical care and treatment is also<br />
assessed.<br />
At the end of each visit a “feedback summary” is issued to the provider identifying<br />
any areas requiring attention. The summary may also include observations about<br />
service developments and / or good practice. Areas requiring attention are listed<br />
and the provider is asked to respond stating what action has been taken. The<br />
response is assessed and followed up if further information is required. The<br />
information is used by the CQC to inform the process of registration and ongoing<br />
compliance with the outcomes and essential standards of safety and quality in<br />
accordance with the Health and Social <strong>Care</strong> Act 2008.