On this visit we focussed our inspection on Ward G1. We were unable to gain the views of all the people who were staying on the ward due to their complex needs. Therefore we observed how care and support was provided and spoke with staff and visitors to help us understand their experiences.

People who used the service and their relatives were given appropriate information and support regarding their care or treatment. We saw people who used the service and their relatives were able to express their views and were involved in making decisions about the care and treatment provided. A visitor told us, “I have been involved in all the meetings. I visit every day and they always tell me how he is.”

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment had been planned and delivered as they preferred. We saw, and were told that people received the care they needed with their individual preferences taken into account.

People received the support they needed in a timely manner from staff who were competent in their role. Staff told us they felt they were well supported and had access to a varied training programme. A visitor said staff had a good understanding of their relative’s needs. They added, “I find them (staff) really nice and helpful.”

There were systems in place to make sure the hospital was operating safely and correctly. People had been given the opportunity to discuss the quality of the service provided and any areas that could be improved.

It was not possible to talk to patients on the inspection visit because people with dementia and other memory problems are not always able to tell us about their experiences.

During our inspection visit conducted on 1st September 2011 we were able to observe care for brief periods. The ward team were busy but we found through interaction and care that staff treat patients with respect, dignity and maintained their privacy. We observed examples where different staff members talked to patients using appropriate means of verbal and non verbal communication by utilising appropriate posture, eye contact and touch.

It was not possible to gain the direct views of people who use the service on this occasion as the assessment was conducted remotely. However a range of information was obtained that demonstrated how the provider ensures people who use services are involved in decisions about services and how their views are obtained. Submissions from the Sheffield LiNK (local involvement network) demonstrated how the provider has worked with and involved LiNK participants in influencing the city wide strategy for improving mental health services in Sheffield. For example, the LiNK participants work on recovery wards had been fed back to managers and staff, leading to changes in care in respect of service users' sexuality, spirituality and problems with social interaction. The LiNK has been involved in the quality reporting process with the provider and stated “we are pleased with how we have been engaged in this and we will possibly be doing some joint enter and view visits.” The provider included some views of people who use services who had fed back comments as part of its last complainants survey, for example, one comment stated, “I like the face to face contact. I felt they understood our concerns and did their best to address them”.

The following quote was from a person who used services from the dementia directorate. “Just a short note to say a big thank you. This service has been an absolute lifeline for me and my family. Things are actually happening with all the help from you.”