Kemple View

Updated 12 September 2019

Kemple View is an independent hospital that is part of the Priory Group. It is situated in Langho, near Blackburn, Lancashire. The hospital provides services for 90 men with mental health needs. Care and treatment is provided in four low secure wards and two rehabilitation wards.

Kemple View is registered to provide the following regulated activities:

• Assessment or medical treatment for persons detained under the Mental Health Act 1983
• Diagnostic and screening procedures
• Treatment of disease, disorder or injury

The registered manager is Margaret Mary Gallagher.

We inspected all six wards at Kemple View.

Arkwright is a 10 bedded forensic ward for older men.

Elmhurst is a 19 bedded forensic ward for men with challenging and complex mental health needs.

Kenton is an 11 bedded forensic ward for men undergoing a sexual management programme.

Wainwright is a 16 bedded forensic ward for men with personality disorder and dual mental health needs.

Hawthorn is a 15 bedded high dependency rehabilitation ward.

Oakwood is a 19 bedded longer term high dependency rehabilitation ward.

All wards have controlled access.

During this inspection, there were 90 men receiving care at Kemple View. All were detained under the Mental Health Act 1983.

The Care Quality Commission has inspected Kemple View on five previous occasions. The last comprehensive inspection of Kemple View was on 26-28 October 2015. The service was compliant with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 and was rated outstanding.

Updated 12 September 2019

We rated Kemple View as outstanding because:

• The service provided safe care. Safety systems were robust and comprehensive. The ward environments were safe and clean. There were enough nurses and doctors. Staff assessed and managed risk well. They were proactive in encouraging patients to manage their own risks. Relational security was very good. Staff minimised the use of restrictive practices, managed medicines safely and followed good practice with respect to safeguarding. The use of restraint and seclusion had decreased since our previous inspection. There was a focus on openness, transparency and learning when things went wrong. There was a clear ‘no blame’ culture.
• There was a strong recovery focused ethos. Staff worked collaboratively with patients. They focused on helping patients to be in control of their lives and building their resilience so that they could regain a meaningful life.
• Staff developed truly holistic, recovery-oriented care plans informed by comprehensive assessments. They supported patients to take as much responsibility for developing their care plans as they could. They provided a range of treatments suitable to the needs of the patients and in line with national guidance about best practice. Staff engaged in clinical audit to evaluate the quality of care they provided.
• Patients had access to the full range of specialists required to meet their needs. Managers ensured that staff received training, supervision and appraisal. Continuous development was recognised as essential to high quality care. Staff were proactively supported to acquire new skills and share best practice. Staff worked well together as a multi-disciplinary team and with those outside the ward who would have a role in providing aftercare. They used technology to help ensure that care and treatment was co-ordinated with other services and providers.
• Staff encouraged and supported patients to use community facilities, reflecting the focus on appropriate behaviour and life in the wider community. The involvement of other organisations and the local community was integral to how they planned care and treatment. There was a clear culture of positive risk taking.
• Staff understood and discharged their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
• There was a strong, person-centred culture. Putting patients at the centre of care, involving and empowering them was clearly embedded. Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and understood the individual needs of patients. They actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. They actively involved patients and families and carers in care decisions.
• Staff planned and managed discharge well and liaised with services that would provide aftercare. As a result, discharge was rarely delayed for other than a clinical reason. Patients were central to care delivery. Staff were proactive in understanding the needs of different groups, especially those who were vulnerable or had complex needs. There was high involvement and engagement with other organisations and the local community that ensured integrated care co-ordinated with other services.
• The service was well led and the governance processes ensured that ward procedures ran smoothly. The leadership, management and governance assured delivery of high-quality and person-centred care, supported learning and innovation, and promoted an open and fair culture. Safety and quality was prioritised. The emphasis on patient involvement was evident across the hospital. Patients were involved in governance at all levels. There was a genuine commitment towards continual improvement and innovation, and a culture of collective responsibility. Staff were motivated to deliver change. Rigorous and constructive challenge was welcomed and seen as a way of holding services to account.

However:

• Staff on Oakwood were unsure where environmental risk assessments were stored.
• Staff on Oakwood were not following the provider’s process in relation to patients who were self-medicating.

Updated 12 September 2019

Forensic care and treatment in conditions of low security.

Updated 12 September 2019

Specialist forensic rehabilitation for patients stepping down from a higher level of security.