Care in Mind

Updated 14 November 2019

Care in Mind has been registered with CQC since November 2016; the service was registered prior to this from a different location. The service provides community-based care and treatment for young people aged 16 to 30 with complex mental health needs. The service is multidisciplinary and includes psychiatrists, psychologists, nurse consultants and therapists.

At the time of the inspection, Care in Mind had nine residential homes across the north of England where young people would reside whilst accessing care and treatment from Care in Mind:

• Brockenhurst in Warrington;
• Cherryhurst in West Kirby, Wirral;
• Elmhurst in Stockport;
• Lyndhurst in Liversedge, West Yorkshire;
• Moor Villa Farm in York;
• Reservoir Lodge in Leeds;
• Stubble Bank in Bury;
• Westfield House in Neston, Wirral;
• Willowhurst in Preston.

Care in Mind also provided an independent flat located next to Stubble Bank in Bury called The Stables.

Care in Mind’s head office is based in Stockport and appointments with clinical staff are accessed at this location. The provider has two further hub locations in Yorkshire and Lancashire to facilitate therapies for the young people in those areas. The young people would also have appointments with their clinical nurse specialists within the residential homes.

The residential homes were not registered as separate locations with CQC. The clinical provision delivered from the clinical hubs was registered with CQC, along with how this was delivered into the residential homes by the teams.

There was a registered manager in post.

Care in Mind is registered to provide the following regulated activities:

• Diagnostic and screening procedures
• Treatment of disease, disorder or injury

The last inspection of Care in Mind took place in August 2017 where the provider was rated good overall and in each domain.

Updated 14 November 2019

We rated Care in Mind as good because:

• Clinical premises where young people were seen were safe and clean. Each young person had an assigned clinical psychiatrist, clinical psychologist and clinical nurse specialist. The numbers of young people allocated to each was not too high to prevent staff from giving each young person the time they needed. Staff completed risk assessments for all young people and these were updated regularly.
• Staff developed holistic, recovery-oriented care plans informed by a comprehensive assessment and in collaboration with the young people. They provided a range of treatments that were informed by best-practice guidance and suitable to the needs of the young people. Staff engaged in audits to evaluate the quality of care they provided.
• The teams included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of the young people. Managers ensured that these staff received training, supervision and appraisal. Staff worked well together as a multidisciplinary team.
• Staff treated the young people with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and understood the individual needs of the young people. The service user involvement coordinator and young person’s champion facilitated and encouraged the young people to have a voice within the service.
• The service was well led and the governance processes ensured that procedures relating to the work of the service ran smoothly.

However:

• Staff could not access all documents contained within the young person’s care record, such as the comprehensive assessment which was password protected.
• Residential staff handovers recorded on the electronic system, although detailed, did not record general updates about the young people and their status, just significant events or news. Some young people reported that they felt that they could often be asked repeated questions from different staff members, indicating that this information had not been handed over.
• Management supervision of staff was not always held regularly and in line with the provider’s policy, although staff did report that they felt supported by managers.
• The young people at two homes raised concerns about the amount of time staff spent in the office, as opposed to engaging with the young people.
• Care plans did not consider the identity of the young people and how staff may be able to support the young people with this.
• Staff were not aware of lessons learnt from incidents across the houses and organisation, although were aware of local lessons learnt.
• Governance systems and processes were still in development and the impact of these was not yet fully clear.

Updated 14 November 2019