58 Queen Square

This was the first time we rated this service. We rated it as good because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff managed safety well. Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well.
• Staff provided good care and treatment. They gave patients pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives and made sure they had access to good information. Key services were available seven days a week.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families, and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported, and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

• Staff had training in key skills but did not always keep this up to date.
• Staff did not all have knowledge needed to ensure the consent process was followed and understood for all patients.
• The arrangements for governance did not always operate affectively.

We rated this service as good in safe, effective, caring, and responsive. Well led required improvement.