Archived: Huntercombe Hospital Cotswold Spa

We did not rate the Huntercombe Group following the well-led review as we only rate individual services for independent providers.

We found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

• The Huntercombe Group had been unable to recruit and retain a sufficient number of nurses with experience in CAMHS across the five services that were open at the time of our inspection. This resulted in services relying heavily on temporary staff to cover shifts. We concluded that this shortage of experienced nursing staff was one of the factors that impacted adversely on the safety of these services. Although the provider had made efforts to recruit, across the five services that were open at the time of the inspection, there were a total of 44 whole time equivalent (WTE) vacancies for registered nurses out of a total required workforce of 109 WTE - a vacancy rate of 40%. Meadow Lodge had the highest vacancy rate (50%); followed by Stafford (48%). The lowest vacancy rate for registered nurses in any of the five services was at Cotswold Spa (29%). These figures did not include long-term contracted nurses and block booked agency staff filling substantive roles as a means to mitigate against high vacancies.

• The Huntercombe Group had not put in place a programme of specialist training of its workforce to mitigate the low numbers of experienced staff.

• Although the Huntercombe Group had investigated and identified lessons to learn from the serious problems identified at Huntercombe Hospital Stafford, the system for ensuring that these lessons were put into practice was immature and not embedded across all of the hospital sites.

• There was no identified member of the senior leadership team accountable for the CAMHS service delivery across The Huntercombe Group. This hindered the organisation’s ability to standardise good practice across the specialism. This was reflected in our findings across the services of inconsistent implementation of policies, sharing of good practice and embedding of lessons learnt across teams.

• We identified a number of significant lapses in governance. There was no effective corporate oversight of the provision of mandatory and role-specific training for staff and no effective system in place to ensure that staff in all services received consistent and regular supervision and appraisal. We found a lack of detail in the minutes of the various provider level governance meetings including the delivery board and quality assurance group. The minutes did not capture the discussion of data relating to performance or adverse incidents. Although senior management were able to inform us what had been discussed at these meetings, the minutes and papers of the meetings did not record this detail.

• The staff engagement strategy was not consistently embedded across all CAMHS services. Staff, at some services, reported they did not feel consulted or engaged in changes to practice and service developments. They did not feel the systems and processes in place supported an open culture for whistle blowing.

We found the following areas of good practice:

• The Huntercombe Group had a clearly stated vision and objectives. Managers worked to ensure all staff at all levels understood them in relation to their daily roles. All staff, including temporary workers, received an induction to their service.

• There was evidence of some improvements in the governance of services since our inspections of Huntercombe Hospital Stafford and Watcombe Hall. The organisation’s early warning escalation system, quality dashboard, quality assurance framework and quality improvement forums provided a range of data.

• There was a programme of regular audits intended to identify issues and inform improvements.

• The provider had a number of initiatives that involved young people. For example, the ‘you said, we did’ initiative encouraged young people to be champions of their peers’ views; and the ‘glamour for your manor’ initiative encouraged young people (and staff) to submit proposals for improvements to their ward environment.

• Several wards had registered with the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ Quality Network for Inpatient Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (QNIC), and some wards had already received QNIC accreditation.