By continuing to use the site you agree to our Privacy & Cookies policy

Your browser seems to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser.

Close

Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Close

Dorset Healthcare University Foundation Trust

Trust admits it wrongly reported same sex compliance

PERFORMANCE: Dorset Healthcare University Foundation Trust has notified regulators that it has been failing standards on same sex accommodation for more than two years, despite reporting compliance.

Ron Shields, interim chief executive of the troubled mental health and community services provider, told the trust’s board meeting on Wednesday the organisation should never have reported it was compliant with the standards.

The trust declared compliance in March 2011. Breaches of the standards can attract fines from commissioners.

Mr Shields told the board the failure affected eight wards. On six of these wards compliance had been addressed through changing “operational arrangements” while minor building works were planned to address the problem in the other two wards, he said.

“I have sent a letter, which has been copied to the board, notifying regulators that we have had a period of non-compliance in terms of same sex accommodation,” he added.

“This came to light when we were looking more closely at accommodation on some of our wards… We shouldn’t have said we were compliant.”

Monitor first intervened at the trust in April last year due to concerns about governance after the Care Quality Commission uncovered longstanding quality problems on a number of wards. Monitor then found the trust had provided regulators with “false assurance” that concerns were being dealt with. Chair Jonathan Walsh and chief executive Paul Sly resigned shortly afterwards.

Readers' comments (2)

  • They are not the first and most defintely ARE NOT the last. Instead of concentrating on those who are failing the target (therefore rightly reporting) there should be a light shone on those declaring compliance. The level of achievement is not what it appears and there is information published nationally to support this if folks want to find it. But why would they when the colour green and the answer yes, is all that is wanted -

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Why on earth did they do it in the first place?

    Unsuitable or offensive?

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment.

Share this


Post a comment


Related Jobs

Sign in to see the latest jobs relevant to you!

Sign up to get the latest health policy news direct to your inbox