DCSIMG

Mental health hospital slammed by watchdog

Guild Lodge

Guild Lodge

An unannounced inspection at Guild Lodge, a secure mental health facility at Whittingham, has revealed the unit is failing to meet to meet four out of six national standards.

Guild Lodge, a medium 
secure and low secure forensic
psychiatric hospital,was judged to be failing to meet the standards for 
respecting and involving people who use its services following an inspection by health watchdog the Care Quality Commission.

One patient told inspectors: “It set me back a lot, it’s more like a prison.”

Inspectors carried out a 
series of unannounced visits at Guild Lodge in November as part of its programme of scheduled inspections for 2013/2014.

A report has now been published revealing that the trust has failed the standards for: respecting and involving people who use its services; the care and welfare of people who use services; assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision; and 
keeping records.

The inspection looked at the care and treatment that people received on two wards – Whinfell and Bleasdale – at Guild Lodge

These wards provide care and treatment in a medium secure unit to patients with an acquired brain injury. All the patients inspectors spoke to were detained under the Mental Health Act.

Patients told inspectors they did not feel they had any say on how the service was run and did not feel able to make suggestions or express opinions.

Patients also revealed they were not routinely consulted with or debriefed following restraint used on the two wards.

Inspectors also discovered that ward level checks and systems were not in place to regularly assess and monitor
the quality of service provided
to patients. They also found accurate records were not maintained in relation to the care and treatment of 
patients at the hospital.

The report stated: “We found limited evidence of the evaluation of care plans by staff or people who used the service. (One) person said: ‘I don’t say nothing about my treatment because I don’t know what’s happening with me. I’m frightened they will send me back to prison.’”

Inspectors also felt that people were not protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and 
treatment because accurate and appropriate records were not kept. The CQC has told Lancashire Care Trust what action is needed to make 
improvements.

A spokesman for the Care Quality Commission said: “If the required improvements are not made, the CQC has a range of enforcement powers, 
which include restricting the services that a provider can offer, or, in the most serious cases, suspending or cancelling
 a service.

“The CQC can also issue 
financial penalty notices and cautions or prosecute the provider for failing to meet essential standards. Any 
regulatory decision that CQC takes is open to challenge by a registered person through a variety of internal and 
external appeal processes.”

A spokesman for Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust said: “The safety and well-being of service users is our utmost priority.

“The CQC identified 
areas of safe service delivery within this regional 
forensic acquired brain injury
 service and also areas where they believe we need to make progress in providing the best care possible for this vulnerable
service user group.

“Prior to the visit, a full root and branch review had been undertaken, focusing on the service model, staffing levels, skills of staff and 
overall organisation of the unit led by Professor Jenny Shaw.

“The related action plan is now in the process of 
being implemented and we are committed to ensuring all of the issues raised by the CQC are dealt with quickly and appropriately.

“During the inspection, the CQC recognised that some issues had already been identified during the internal review and were being 
addressed.

“The trust has a positive relationship with service 
users, commissioners and the CQC, and is taking a proactive approach to the inspection and its findings.

“We will be reporting back to the CQC on the progress made at regular intervals.”

 

Comments

 
 

Back to the top of the page