Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


Brierley Court Independent Hospital, Manchester.

Brierley Court Independent Hospital in Manchester is a Hospitals - Mental health/capacity specialising in the provision of services relating to assessment or medical treatment for persons detained under the 1983 act, caring for people whose rights are restricted under the mental health act, diagnostic and screening procedures, mental health conditions and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The last inspection date here was 10th January 2018

Brierley Court Independent Hospital is managed by Elysium Healthcare Limited who are also responsible for 10 other locations

Contact Details:

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Requires Improvement
Effective: Requires Improvement
Caring: Requires Improvement
Responsive: Requires Improvement
Well-Led: Requires Improvement
Overall:

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2018-01-10
    Last Published 2018-01-10

Local Authority:

    Manchester

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

1st January 1970 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We rated Brierley Court as requires improvement because

We had concerns about safety in this service. Ligature audits did not reflect the risks throughout the service. Actions identified in the fire safety risk assessment had not been actioned. Staffing establishment figures for registered nurses were too low. Risk assessments were not completed in line with the provider policy and not regularly reviewed. There were restrictive practices in relation to searching patients, locking of rooms and the garden area. Safeguarding notifications were not always made to CQC.

In care records, we noted no patient had a completed discharge plan. Accessible care plans were not in place for those who needed them.

Patients gave mixed feedback about the service. None of the patients we spoke to or who participated in the patient survey had been offered care plans and one did not know if they had any. None of the patients we spoke to or who participated in the patient survey were aware of a discharge plan.

The hospital had limited facilities in terms of rooms for therapy and activity. Patients were not engaged in sufficient meaningful activity to meet the target set by the provider. Patients were not having weekly individual sessions with named nurses in line with the provider’s policy.

We did not feel that the service had a clear direction in terms of the model of care. Both the setting and some individual care plans were restrictive and did not reflect a rehabilitation setting, for example, the escort baseline risk assessments, the locked garden and laundry and the policy for random searching of rooms. Actions were not completed in a timely fashion, for example from provider compliance visits and risk assessments. We noted a reliance on dashboards which presented a different picture when the data relied upon for these was checked. We were concerned about oversight and monitoring in terms of admissions and whether patients’ needs could be met by the service.

 

 

Latest Additions: