Search the hub

The review found that while in many cases care and treatment were appropriate, there were a number of cases that raised specific patient safety concerns. Below is a summary of key themes from this report: Out of area placements An out of area placement occurs when a person with acute mental health needs who requires inpatient care is admitted to a unit that does not form part of the usual local network of services. This review found that there was significant variation for people who are autistic and/or have a learning disability in this regard. This was most striking in the South West of England and Midlands regions, where 73% and 68% of all placements, respectively, were out of area compared to the national average of 57%. The report notes this can have significant impacts on the person affected by this, making it more difficult for them to maintain links with family, local services, communities and clinical/social work professionals. Hospital rather than community care It found that a significant number of patients covered by SWRs did not need to be in a hospital setting to receive the right care and treatment. The national average was 41%, while in the South West of England 53% of individuals did not need to be in hospital settings. The report linked this figure to delays in discharge processes, with patients staying in hospital settings for longer than needed as a result. Concerns about the involvement of family members and carers Concerningly, the report notes that examples of poor communication with family members and carers ‘far outweighed’ examples of effective communication, including: Being excluded from planning and decisions about their loved ones. Not being provided with basic information such as how to contact family members and visiting times. Not being listened to in relation to the care and treatment of their family member, or decisions about their care and wellbeing. There was regional variation in these figures, with one particularly striking case being an Integrated Care System stating that in 39% of their safe and wellbeing reviews, family representatives either could not be contacted for the purposes of the review, they did not want to be contacted or the individual did not want them to be contacted. Advocacy Another area of concern cited was the availability and quality of advocacy for people in hospital, which the report describes as generally inconsistent. Concerns included: Family members having to step into the role of advocates in place of professional advocacy, though they are generally not trained to do so, may not know all the options available and cannot be fully independent. Some provides being resistance to creating a “culture of importance” around advocacy. Poor advocacy awareness in places, which extended to limited attempts by providers to contact advocates and proactively involve them in processes and decisions relating to individuals. Safeguarding In the 3% of cases where safeguarding concerns were raised (50 out of 1,770), serious concerns noted by the report included: Inconsistent and/or high levels of restraint, seclusion and segregation. Patients not being assessed appropriately under the Mental Capacity Act or assessments not being completed in a timely way Harms associated with weight gain during admission (increasing the likelihood of health problems and premature mortality) and long lengths of stay. Issues associated with individuals being placed in inappropriate settings (for example, mixed-gender wards), the absence of CCTV in inpatient settings, issues with staff attitudes and relationships. Low quality and inconsistent of incident reporting. Inappropriate and inconsistent use of medication. The review also said that one region noted that safeguarding referrals were not always made appropriately, and plans were not always implemented to prevent the incidents from happening again. Physical health The report notes that it found multiple references to individuals with a high body mass index and significant weight gain following people being admitted to hospital, including instances where this led to people developing diabetes. This was a key area of concern also raised in the Cawston Park safeguarding adults review. Individual wellbeing and positive mental health The report noted that in many mental health inpatient settings there were not enough activities for people to do and not enough done to help maintain social connections. It noted that meaningful activities were not consistently available and, where they were, were not always age-appropriate, co-planned and person-centred. Workforce The report noted a number of workforce issues, including: Families and advocates raised concerns about whether wards were unsafe when there were significant staff shortages on them. Staff burnout. Heavy reliance on agency and/or temporary staff which can have negative impacts on patients being able to access regular activities and on patient-staff relationships. Reports of staff not having the appropriate training or skillset to effectively meet the needs of individuals. Conclusions and next steps Throughout the report there are a number of sections detailing ‘key considerations’ for providers and Integrated Care Systems, though no specific actions. It notes towards the end of the report that following on from this, NHS England, on a national and regional footprint, working with people with lived experience, family carers, integrated care boards, providers and commissioners, will bring partners together to look at specific actions that will address the challenges and themes highlighted through this thematic review over the next 12 months.

The four reports focused on: Silverdale Trelawney House Heightlea Carrick.

Key messages People have a right to expect: access to the care they need, when they need it and that appropriate reasonable adjustments are made to meet people’s individual needs. This starts from the first point of contact with a hospital. This is not just good practice – it is a legal requirement. staff to communicate with them in a way that meets their needs and involves them in decisions about their care that they are fully involved in their care and treatment. the care and treatment they receive meets all their needs, including making reasonable adjustments where necessary and taking into account any equality characteristics such as age, race and sexual orientation. that their experiences of care are not dependent on whether or not they have access to specialist teams and practitioners. However, the report highlights the following issues: People said they found it difficult to access care because reasonable adjustments weren't always made. Providers need to make sure they are making appropriate reasonable adjustments to meet people’s individual needs. There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution for communication. Providers need to make sure that staff have the tools and skills to enable them to communicate effectively to meet people’s individual needs. People are not being fully involved in their care and treatment. In many cases, this is because there is not enough listening, communication and involvement. Providers need to make sure that staff have enough time and skills to listen to people and their families so they understand and can meet people’s individual needs. Equality characteristics, such as age, race and sexual orientation, risked being overshadowed by a person’s learning disability or autism because staff lacked knowledge and understanding about inequalities. Providers need to ensure that staff have appropriate training and knowledge so they can meet all of a person’s individual needs. Specialist practitioners and teams cannot hold sole responsibility for improving people’s experiences of care. Providers must make sure that all staff have up-to-date training and the right skills to care for people with a learning disability and autistic people.

The report addresses these three key areas: Community support: reducing the number of autistic people and people with learning disabilities in inpatient facilities, and the benefits of the Trieste model The use of restrictive practices in inpatient facilities and wider concerns relating to the appropriateness and continued use of such facilities The wellbeing of and accountability for autistic people and people with learning disabilities including the creation of a new role: the Intellectual Disability Physician, and the need for independent reviews into the deaths of autistic people and people with learning disabilities

Brooke was admitted to Chadwick Lodge on 15 April 2019 and had been diagnosed with Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder and Autism Spectrum Disorder; she initially failed to engage and was violent to staff and self-harming. By the middle of May 2019 she had made progress. On 5th June 2019 she was found with a ligature around her neck, which was suspended from the door of her room. Following this incident consideration should have been given to a formal risk assessment to include consideration of her level of observation. The details of the incident should have been fully disclosed to the MDT meeting on 6 June and consideration given to increasing the level of observation. The incident should also have been discussed and disclosed to all members of staff caring for her. On 10 June 2019 Brooke Martin was found secretly fiddling with a bedsheet on two occasions by two different members of staff.. The bedsheet should have been removed and examined, that would have shown that a section of the sheet had been torn off. This would and should have resulted in a full risk assessment and search of her room, that would have resulted in an increase in her level of observations to 1:1 observations. Brooke Martin, if constantly observed or other safety measures put in place would not have been able to tie the ligature that caused her death and would not therefore have died on 11t June 2019. Coroner's concerns During the course of the evidence it was explained to the coroner that it had not been possible to access the notes and records from an out of area hospital because not all the health providers were using “System One”. It is a major concern that the various systems used throughout the NHS are not compatible with each other and it is not always possible for each healthcare provider to access the notes and records of the patient. This situation should be reviewed to see how access across the NHS can be gained to patient records when required. The coroner was told by one senior clinician that when a patient is referred to his specialist mental health unit it is often the case, that is 9 times out of 10, he does not receive all the information of the patient’s history. This would not be the case if he had direct access to the records.