We rated Hope House as good because:

• We observed staff to be interacting with young people in a person centred, caring and nurturing manner.
• Young people spoke positively about the clinical staff, they reported that staff listened to them; they were easy to talk to, respectful and understanding.
• Young people were involved in recruiting and selecting staff and the design of the waiting area of Hope House.
• Young people were actively involved in their care planning, with the use of the recovery star to monitor progress.
• Records reviewed contained detailed risk assessments and risk management plans for the young people.
• Clinical nurse specialists communicated with GPs regarding annual health checks and required screening.
• Detailed care plans were in place in relation to young people prescribed medicines with specific monitoring requirements.
• The multidisciplinary team included nurses, phycologists, a consultant psychiatrist, a family therapist and an art therapist. The therapist provided a range of therapies, which met with best practice.
• Staff attended a variety of training relevant to the needs of the young people. This included the graduate diploma in child and adolescent mental health practice. Staff understood their role in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Mental Health Act.
• Care programme approach meetings were person centred and fully involved the young person.
• A service user coordinator role had been introduced which had resulted in the creation of a young person friendly guide about the service and the involvement of young people in other areas of the service.
• Staff were following the complaints policy and keeping a log of complaints made.
• There was a clear corporate governance meeting structure with defined terms of reference.
• Managers and directors had attended training in leadership and management.
• The senior managers were visible within the service and staff reported they were approachable.
• Staff had received an appraisal and regular supervision, both clinical and managerial.

However:

• Not all young people knew how to complain about the service.
• There was no information on display on how young people could contact CQC.
• Mandatory training levels were below 75% for therapeutic risk underpinned by safe supportive techniques, conflict resolution and personal safety and emergency first aid.
• There was no formal method of sharing learning from incidents within the clinical services.