The Care Quality Commission
  • Mental Health
  • Independent mental health service

Care in Mind

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Unit B2, Hercules Office Park, Bird Hall Lane, Stockport, Cheshire, SK3 0UX (0161) 638 3285

Provided and run by:
Care In Mind Limited

Important: This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

All Inspections

03 - 06 September 2019

During a routine inspection

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.

22 and 23 August 2017

During a routine inspection

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.