We rated Kent House Hospital as good because:

• The hospital had addressed the issues that had caused us to rate safe as requires improvement following the October 2015 inspection.
• At the previous inspection in October 2015, we found that staff had not carried out physical health checks on young people after they had been given medicines for rapid tranquilisation. At the current inspection, we found there was an improvement and physical health checks were being carried out after rapid tranquilisation had taken place
• At the previous inspection in October 2015, we found that staff had not recorded the details of each patient restraint accurately and consistently. The service could monitor the use of restraint and ensure that it was being done as safely as possible. At the current inspection we found there was an improvement in the recording of incidents of restraint. Records were completed accurately and consistently and senior managers had good oversight of restraints.
• At the previous inspection in October 2015, we found that patients and staff were not protected from the risk of infection. The kitchen was not clean and food items were not stored safely or used when fresh. At the current inspection we found that the kitchen and serving area were visibly clean; food was stored appropriately and was in date.
• At the previous inspection in October 2015, we found that the provider was not ensuring that checks with the disclosure and barring service were being completed on new staff before they started working in a clinical area. At the current inspection we found that checks with the disclosure and barring service were being carried out for prospective staff before they began work at the service.
• Care records were up to date, personalised and holistic. Each patient had a number of different care plans, which covered different areas of need, such as: communication, mental health and medication. Clinical assessments were carried out on the day of admission and further assessments of risk and physical health were done shortly after admission.
• All patients had very detailed positive behaviour support plans. These were person centred with evidence that the young person had been involved.

• Patients and carers told us that staff were friendly, approachable and kind. The independent advocate reported that staff were very focused on the needs of the young people and cared about them.
• Families could stay in the purpose built family bungalow whilst visiting their family member.
• The multi-disciplinary team consisted of a range of experienced professionals. Staff were positive about the multi-disciplinary team and how they worked together. Hospital staff worked closely with the hospital school. The service supported the young people to continue with their education, achieving positive results. School staff knew about the health needs of the young people and were part of the multi-disciplinary team.
• The senior management team ensured that leadership, governance and culture were used to drive and improve the delivery of high quality person-centred care. They ensured that there was a culture of continuous improvement within the service. Staff demonstrated excellent commitment to quality improvement that would improve patient care.
• The leadership team within the service promoted and prioritised safe, high quality, compassionate care. Staff felt supported to do their job and described staff morale as good despite being a challenging place to work. The culture on the wards was open and encouraged staff to bring forward ideas for improving care.
• The service had developed an innovative psychotherapy treatment programme for young people with autism and mental health needs. This pathway aimed for young people to be able to understand their autism, how it affected them and other areas of their mental health. It assisted in supporting them to learn to manage their difficulties and prepare them for their future. The therapy team had recently won an award for this programme at a medical psychotherapy conference.

However:

• Emergency medication and equipment that was available in the grab bags did not match the current policy of the provider. This was due to a new provider recently taking over. The senior management team were aware of this and were in the process of changing the pharmacy provision to ensure that the contents of the bags matched the policy.