- Independent mental health service
The Langford Centre
Report from 25 June 2024 assessment
Contents
Ratings - Forensic inpatient or secure wards
Our view of the service
We carried out a responsive inspection of Pevensey ward, which is a 16 bedded male ward for patients who suffer from severe mental disorders and require a placement within a low secure environment. Pevensey ward was previously inspected in March 2022 and rated requires improvement. We published the report based on Care Quality Commission (CQC)’s old inspection approach using key lines of enquiry (KLOEs), prompts and ratings characteristics. This inspection has been completed following the CQC’s new approach to inspection, the Single Assessment Framework (SAF). We carried out our on-site inspection on 9 and 10 July 2024. This was an unannounced inspection, which means the provider was not pre-informed about the visit. During this inspection, we focussed on 15 quality statements across two key questions to determine whether the forensic inpatient ward was safe and whether leaders had the skills and experience to lead and support staff. As we assessed most quality statements in the key questions safe and well-led, new ratings were awarded for these key questions. We did not assess effective, caring and responsive, so the rating from the previous inspection has been used to rate these key questions. Our overall rating for this ward stayed the same. We rated it as requires improvement. At this inspection, the provider was found to be in breach of regulation 12 and 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The service did not manage medicines well and did not have systems and processes in place for proper oversight of medicines. The provider did not always manage the physical health of patients well. The provider had not taken all practicable steps to ensure the safety of its premises. The provider did not ensure all premises and equipment used by the service was properly maintained. The provider had not taken steps to assess, monitor and mitigate the risks relating to the health, safety and welfare of patients and others who may be at risk which arise from the carrying on of the regulated activity.
However, patients felt supported by staff and involved in their care and treatment and managers supported staff. Patients said the ward environment was clean. The provider managed incidents well and reported incidents to CQC.The provider ensured that all staff received appropriate training, and professional development as is necessary to enable them to carry out the duties they were employed to perform.
People's experience of this service
We spoke with five patients and with two carers. Both patients and carers gave mixed feedback about the staff and their experiences of care and treatment on the ward. Some patients said they faced delay to their section 17 leave and smoking breaks.
One patient said they felt bullied by other patients and did not feel supported by staff.
One carer told us the ward doctor was dismissive when they questioned the diagnosis of their relative and said they did not believe staff were skilled to manage their relative’s needs, specifically relating to their diagnosis of autism. A patient survey conducted in June 2024 found 38% of patients were extremely likely to recommend the service to others, while 41% said that they were likely to recommend this service to others.
However, patients gave positive feedback about staff and the ward environment. They recognised the efforts staff made to respond to their requests and said most staff were polite and respectful. Patients also gave positive feedback about the quality of food and meals provided by the hospital.
Patients expressed mixed feedback about how safe they felt on the ward but described some staff as being respectful, kind and tried to respond to their requests as quickly as they could. One patient said staff were caring and responsive to their needs even though they observed staff worked long hours and generally appeared tired during their shifts, but staff tried their best to support them in these circumstances. Another patient told us staff were caring, and that the hospital is one of the best hospitals they had ever been.
One relative expressed how happy they were with the patient admissions process.