Enter and View follow-up: Jupiter Ward, Springfield University HospitalDownload (PDF 706KB)
Summary of report contentIn December 2015 Healthwatch Merton carried out an Enter and View visit to Jupiter Ward, a mixed gender ward that provides mental health care to clients, at Springfield University Hospital, and subsequently published the report in January 2016. As part of that project it was agreed that Healthwatch Merton would conduct a follow-up visit to Jupiter Ward, one year on, and so in January 2017 Enter and View representatives made three further visits to the ward and have produced this report. The ward is divided into male and female wings, with communal areas in between, and two ‘swing’ rooms which can accommodate someone of any gender. One of the changes since the last visit was that this ward now accepted patients from anywhere in the five boroughs served by the trust, and not just Merton as it used to. Jupiter is an inpatient ward; conditions treated include depression, schizophrenia, first-presentation psychosis, schizo-affected disorder, manic depressive psychosis and postnatal depression. HWM carried out interviews with 15 patients over the three days they visited, and had the opportunity to speak with staff. HWM felt that Jupiter Ward provided a welcoming and comfortable environment to recover in, and that the staff provided a high standard of care and see to patients’ needs with conscientiousness and commitment. The staff was described as helpful, caring, supportive and friendly. Two patients were not aware that they can raise their concerns about their medication with the Independent Mental Health Advocate when she visits the ward. Overall most patients found the food to be “fine”, “good” or “alright”. Some staff members expressed their concerns with the admission and the effectiveness of ‘Lotus Assessment Unit’. It was clear that the Trust is going through a period of large-scale changes and the effect on patient experience needed careful monitoring to make sure that adjustments are contributing positively to providing the best possible service to patients and carers. HWM reviewed the changes from the last report produced in 2015, and also made more recommendations based on this follow up visit. Some of these recommendations are: To try to equip patients with a befriender upon discharge, increasing activities on weekends, make more leaflets and information available, give patients more opportunities to give feedback and challenge any decisions, make a chaplain available if needed by the patients, provide more information about local community services available to patients. This follow-up report was submitted to South West London and St Georges NHS Foundation Trust in May 2017. The service provider thanked HWM but did not offer a detailed response.
Would you like to look at:
Enter and View follow-up: Jupiter Ward, Springfield University Hospital
Date of publication
Friday, 30 June, 2017
Date evidence capture began
Wednesday, 11 January, 2017
Date evidence capture finished
Monday, 23 January, 2017
Type of report
Enter and view
Building and facilities
Cleanliness hygiene and infection control
Communication between staff and patients
Food and nutrition
Health and safety
Quality of care
Healthwatch reference number
Was the work undertaken at the request of another organisation?
Primary research method used
How was the information collected?
Visit to provider
If an Enter and View methodology was applied, was the visit announced or unannounced?
Secondary care services
Acute services with overnight beds
Mental health services
Depression and anxiety service
Mental health recovery service
Types of disabilities
Types of long term conditions
Mental health condition
Number of people who shared their views
All people 18 and over
Specific ethnicity if known
Prefer not to say
Does the information include staff's views?
Types of health and care professionals engaged
Care / support workers
Does the information include other people's views?
What was the main sentiment of the people who shared their views?
Were recommendations made by local Healthwatch in the report?
Does the information contain a response from a provider?
Is there evidence of impact in the report?
Is there evidence of impact external to the report?