At our last inspection in October 2013, we found people who used the service did not always understand the care and treatment choices available to them. It was not clear if people’s views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care. We also found people did not always experience care, treatment and support that met their needs. We asked the provider to send us a report which set out the actions they would take to achieve compliance with this regulation. During this inspection we checked these actions had been completed.

People’s views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

On this inspection 25 October 2013 we visited Sorrel Ward, one of the six wards on the Prospect Park Hospital site. Sorrel Ward is a psychiatric intensive care unit which offers a service to people who are acutely unwell and consequently detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. The ward provides a low stimulus environment for those people who have specific needs and associated risks that cannot be managed on other wards. The average duration of stay is 30 days but this can vary from a few hours to a year.

We found that people were not always helped to understand the care and treatment they were offered. We saw that there were few records kept to show that people had put forward their views or that their choices were explained to them.

We saw that care plans were not always designed to meet the needs of the individual. Staff members told us that the care planning system was very complex, we found that this was the case.

The hospital followed safeguarding policies and procedures to protect people from abuse.

The environment was safe, clean and well maintained.

Staff were well trained and supported to enable them to care for people. People told us, ‘’ the staff are okay.’’

The hospital listened to people’s views on their daily living conditions and acted on them. There were, generally, ways of checking that the standard of care was maintained or improved.

This review was carried out to check that the trust had made improvements relating to internal policies, procedures and practices that were in place at the time of our last review of the trust in March 2011.

We visited the trust's headquarters to assess the improvements and did not, on this occasion, speak with patients as part of the review so cannot report what they said.

We did not speak with patients or their relatives as part of this responsive review. However, we did speak to a member of one of the Berkshire safeguarding authorities to help inform our review.

There were nine people at Campion Unit when we visited. We met and introduced ourselves to five of the people using the service. We spoke to four people in more depth to get their views of the service.

The expert by experience working with us spoke to the manager and completed a tour of the unit with them. They made the following comments and observations: -

All rooms had recently been redecorated and there were lots of plants. Easy read signs had been ordered for bedroom doors and large pictures for walls which were bare. There were enclosed notice boards on downstairs corridor walls providing information about; The Mental Health Act 1983 and Mental Capacity Act 2005, advocacy, leisure opportunities or day activities, general information (includes chaplain’s contact details).

The family carer made the following observations and comments: -

Staff generally engage appropriately and regularly with people and respect their interests and choices. Staff use de-escalation when an incident appears to be developing. Family members are encouraged to visit and people are encouraged to go home for visits where appropriate. Family members are invited to meetings about their relative. Family members believe that staff keep people and visitors safe, and the service assesses and treats their relatives effectively. One family member described what the service had achieved as ‘slightly short of a miracle’, two others said the service was ‘absolutely marvellous’ and ‘achieved miracles’ and staff are ‘a pleasure to deal with’.