Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..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


West Park Epsom, West Park Hospital, Horton Lane, Epsom.

West Park Epsom in West Park Hospital, Horton Lane, Epsom 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 adults over 65 yrs, caring for people whose rights are restricted under the mental health act, dementia, mental health conditions and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The last inspection date here was 25th April 2014

West Park Epsom is managed by Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust who are also responsible for 18 other locations

Contact Details:

    Address:
      West Park Epsom
      Ramsay House
      West Park Hospital
      Horton Lane
      Epsom
      KT19 8PB
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      01883383838
    Website:

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: No Rating / Under Appeal / Rating Suspended
Effective: No Rating / Under Appeal / Rating Suspended
Caring: No Rating / Under Appeal / Rating Suspended
Responsive: No Rating / Under Appeal / Rating Suspended
Well-Led: No Rating / Under Appeal / Rating Suspended
Overall: No Rating / Under Appeal / Rating Suspended

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2014-04-25
    Last Published 0000-00-00

Local Authority:

    Surrey

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.

11th February 2014 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made pdf icon

This was a follow-up inspection because at our last inspection on 15th August 2013 we found the service provider was not fully meeting all of the regulations set out in the Health and Social Care act 2008. The service provider sent us an action plan dated 6th November 2013 telling us what actions they would take and when they would become fully compliant with the regulations.

We found that people who used the service could be confident that they would be supported by staff who understood how to deliver the service to them as individuals in a socially respectful way.

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. We spoke with three staff who confirmed that they were aware of the safeguarding policy and that they had been updating their training around the use of restraint.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs. We observed that there were enough staff to provided 1-1 support to people who used the service who had been assessed as requiring 1-1 staff time; staff we talked with told us that their 1-1 time was protected and that there were enough staff to ensure that they were not called away or so that they could be replaced if they needed a break. Staff told us that they were no longer short staffed and staffing levels were much better now.

15th August 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We visited three units over two wards in the hospital.

We saw that patient's needs were assessed before they were admitted to the hospital. Each patient had a care plan based on their initial needs assessment. Some patients told us that they had been involved in their care planning and we saw that other patients did not have the mental capacity to contribute themselves. We also noted patients had a formal risk assessment that supported their care plan.

Patients told us they were well cared for and that staff were very caring and understanding. We observed some patients required more support than others and this was not always available because of the staffing levels provided.

We were told that activities were provided by the occupational therapy department, however patients were unoccupied on the day of our visit.

We looked at safeguarding procedures and made a referral to the local authority using the safeguarding multi disciplinary procedures.

We observed communal areas were comfortable and decorated and furnished to a reasonable standard. Individual accommodation was provided in single rooms and these varied in standard according to patient's wellbeing.

We observed the staffing levels on all three units we visited were insufficient to meet patient's assessed needs.

 

 

Latest Additions: