Enter and view: Lavender Ward, Queen Mary's Hospital

Download (PDF 245KB)

Summary of report content

Healthwatch Richmond conducted an Enter and View on Lavender Ward, at Queen Mary’s Hospital, a mental health service. The visits were conducted on 14th July, 19th July, and 21st August 2017. The service was provided South West London and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust (SWLSTG). The visits were arranged as part of Healthwatch Richmond’s Enter and View schedule. Observations were made by the Enter and View representatives reported. Staff’s attitude was described by patients as ‘friendly’ and ‘welcoming’. However, there was delayed communication to inform patient, upon admission, of their designated key nurse. there was no clear procedure on how to provide feedback. Some patients were not aware of their care plans. Providing housing to patients upon discharge was a major issue that resulted in delays in updating care plans. This is often due to the shortage of housing that was provided or arranged by social services. Activities arranged at the ward were described by staff and patients as ‘not stimulating’, ‘not enough to challenge or interest’, ‘limited’ or ‘regularly cancelled’. The lack of activities was attributed to the lack of funding. Meals provided were described as ‘good’. Dietary requirements were accommodated such as Halal meals. However, patients thought that meals could have extra portions of fruit or vegetables. Ward environment had a mixed experience of safety concerns. Feeling safe at the ward sometimes depended on other patients becoming disruptive or distressed. Some patients were concerned that their room lock was faulty or they were not given a key to lock their room. Some patients felt safe throughout their admission. The ward’s environment was described as ‘clean’ and ‘well-kept’, except for the patio and some outstanding maintenance work. Information and notices on activities and therapy programme were accessible and available, such as hearing aid. Patients generally felt support during the discharge process. However, staff found the discharge planning process increasingly more difficult, with delayed discharge. Social workers will only attend a patient’s ward round under the current arrangement and attendance, which was described by staff as ‘sporadic’. Staff visibility and staffing levels were variable. The report made 19 recommendations. The first two recommendations included communication: 1. The ward should introduce a system which reinforces the difference between a key nurse and daily named nurse to patients and the roles they play in their treatment and care. 2. The ward should introduce a designated comments box in an accessible location on the ward as a confidential means for leaving feedback A comprehensive response was received from SWLSTG

Would you like to look at:

General details

Report title 
Enter and view: Lavender Ward, Queen Mary's Hospital
Local Healthwatch 
Healthwatch Richmond upon Thames
Date of publication 
Monday, 13 November, 2017
Date evidence capture began 
Friday, 14 July, 2017
Date evidence capture finished 
Monday, 21 August, 2017
Type of report 
Enter and view
Key themes 
Access
Building and facilities
Cleanliness hygiene and infection control
Discharge
Health and safety
Medication
Quality of care
Staff attitudes
Staff levels
Staff training
Healthwatch reference number 
Rep-1817

Methodology and approach

Was the work undertaken at the request of another organisation? 
No
Primary research method used 
Observation
Structured interview
How was the information collected? 
Visit to provider
If an Enter and View methodology was applied, was the visit announced or unannounced? 
Announced

Details of health and care services included in the report

Secondary care services 
Acute services with overnight beds

Details of people who shared their views

Number of people who shared their views 
Unknown
Age group 
All
Gender 
All
Ethnicity 
All
Specific ethnicity if known 
All
Sexual orientation 
Not known
Does the information include public's views? 
Yes
Does the information include carer's, friend's or relative's views? 
Yes
Does the information include staff's views? 
Yes
Types of health and care professionals engaged 
Administrative
All care professionals
Does the information include other people's views? 
No
What was the main sentiment of the people who shared their views? 
Mixed

Outcomes and impact

Were recommendations made by local Healthwatch in the report? 
Yes
Does the information contain a response from a provider? 
Yes action has been taken or promised
Is there evidence of impact in the report? 
No
Is there evidence of impact external to the report? 
Yes
What type of impact was determined? 
Implied Impact
Tangible impact (not cost related)

Network Impact
Relationships that exist locally, regionally, nationally have benefited from the work undertaken in the report
 
Implied Impact
Where it is implied that change may occur in the future as a result of Healthwatch work. This can be implied in a provider  response, press release or other source. Implied impact can become tangible impact once change has occurred.
 
Tangible Impact
There is evidence of change that can be directly attributed to Healthwatch work undertaken in the report.