We rated Woodland View as good because

:

• The service provided safe care. The ward environments were safe and clean. Staff assessed and managed risk well. They minimised the use of restrictive practices, managed medicines safely and followed good practice with respect to safeguarding.
• Staff developed holistic, recovery-oriented care plans informed by a comprehensive assessment. They provided a range of treatments suitable to the needs of the patients cared for in a mental health rehabilitation ward and in line with national best practice guidance. The hospital provided a full range of physical healthcare for patients. This included access to a well man clinic within the hospital and access to a range of specialists through the local GP such as a diabetes nurse.
• The ward teams included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of patients on the wards. Managers ensured that these staff received training to support them in their roles. Staff worked well together as a multi-disciplinary team and with those outside the ward who would have a role in providing aftercare.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity and understood the individual needs of patients. They actively involved patients and families and carers in care decisions.
• Staff planned and managed discharge well and liaised well with services that would provide aftercare. As a result, discharge was rarely delayed for other than a clinical reason.
• Staff provided a range of activities for patients including paid work, volunteering and a full range of activities linked to the local community.
• The service worked to a structured pathway of mental health rehabilitation. It was well led and the governance processes ensured that ward procedures ran smoothly.

However:

• The hospital did not routinely record that supervision of staff had taken place so it would not be possible for managers to ensure all staff had received the correct level of supervision for their roles. A system had been put in place but this was not fully embedded as routine practice.

• Staff did not always record general observations as they happened on Elkin Ward which could potentially put patients at risk although we saw no evidence that this had been the case.

• The hospital did not always ensure scrutiny checklists for Mental Health Act paperwork were completed in a timely manner to ensure errors had been identified and could be corrected.
• Staff counted cutlery in and out at mealtimes but this was not individually risk assessed for patients.