CQC report slams mental health care in Peterborough

NHS chiefs have hit back at claims they are failing mental health patients in Peterborough after a damning standards report.

Care Quality Commission (CQC) has told Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust that if it does not take immediate steps to improve five essential standards, it could be stripped of its powers to provide health services.

A Review of Compliance into the trust was published on Monday (28 February) and follows the CQC’s visits to four sites including Peterborough Prison and Cavell Centre in Bretton between February and October 2010.

Inspectors criticised the trust’s levels of staffing at the sites, questioned the standard of care given to some patients and slammed the safety and the suitability of some of their premises.

They found there are not always sufficient numbers of staff with the right competencies, skills and experience available at their sites.

Also, they said “poorly designed” fixed furniture and “potential ligature points” which posed a risk to patients at some premises, although the CQC report does not reveal at which sites these were found.

The report also raised specific concerns about the Cavell Centre, which was found to have a “number of issues” impacting on safety of patients.

Issues raised included secure door-locking mechanisms not working correctly and the “location of garden benches enabling detained people to use them to abscond”.

Although the trust’s chief executive, Jenny Raine, said she agreed with the findings, she believes the CQC’s overall verdict is unfair.

She said: “We were disappointed when we received the report from the CQC.

“Our view is some of the conclusions are harsh. The facts of the report are correct but the judgements are unfair.

“The Cavell Centre is a brand new facility and it’s of a very high standard and people are always impressed by its standards.

“The CQC has looked at those issues and suggested there could be risks, but what they haven’t said is there have never been any problems relating to those issues.

“The benches have gone and the door mechanisms have been fixed.”

Mrs Raine also moved to reassure people that mental health services sites in Peterborough are safe and that the quality of care provided at them is high.

She added: “We want to reassure people our sites are absolutely safe. People will get a high standard of care in Peterborough.”

The trust has already sent an action plan to the CQC about how it will address its concerns, well within the CQC’s 14-day deadline, and another inspection will be carried out in the next few weeks to check this has been put into action.

Mrs Raine added: “The majority of that has been completed and the rest will be completed within the next month.”

CQC east regional director Frances Carey said the trust has responded “positively” and has set out how they intend to meet essential standards.

However, she added: “We will be monitoring this trust closely and won’t hesitate to use enforcement powers if these improvements are not made swiftly.”

Under the Health and Social Care Act 2008, the CQC has a number of enforcement powers available when services are failing people.

These include issuing warning notices, restricting the services that a provider can offer or the way it is provided, or – in the most serious cases – suspending or cancelling a service.

CQC can also issue financial penalty notices and cautions or prosecute the provider for failing to meet essential standards.

FACTFILE: the CQC’s report

THE CQC says that the Trust is failing to meet five essential standards. These are:

• Care and welfare of people who use services.
• Safeguarding vulnerable people who use services from abuse.
• Safety and suitability of premises
• Staffing
• Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision

The CQC said the trust was failing to safeguard vulnerable patients because its reporting and auditing systems are not robust.

Under the safety and suitability of premises standard, the quality of the décor and maintenance of one ward run by the trust was judged not to “promote the dignity and wellbeing of people using services”.