- Independent mental health service
Bromley Road Hospital
Assessment report published 3 September 2026
Contents
Ratings - Long stay or rehabilitation mental health wards for working age adults
Our view of the service
This inspection was an unannounced, comprehensive review of the high dependency rehabilitation inpatient service at Bromley Road Hospital, on 17 and 18 March 2026. We assessed all quality statements across the five key questions: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive, and Well-led.
During the inspection, we spoke with the consultant, director of governance, service manager, deputy ward manager, physical health lead, nurses, healthcare assistants, and members of the multidisciplinary team. We also spoke with 6 patients, 2 carers, reviewed 9 patients’ care and treatment records, examined medication records, carried out a detailed tour of the physical environment and reviewed a range of additional documentation relating to the operation of the service.
Patients received safe, effective and person-centred care from a skilled multidisciplinary team that worked collaboratively to support recovery, rehabilitation and progression towards greater independence. Staff assessed and managed risks effectively, minimised the use of restrictive practices, managed medicines safely and followed safeguarding procedures to protect patients from harm. The ward environments were clean, well maintained and supported safe care, and staffing levels were sufficient to meet patients' needs. The service had successfully recruited to nursing vacancies, which supported continuity of care and therapeutic engagement.
Care and treatment were delivered in line with a recognised model of mental health rehabilitation and reflected national guidance and best practice. Patients received holistic assessments and personalised care plans that focused on recovery, independence and improving quality of life. Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) planning was a particular strength of the service. Plans were informed by detailed psychological formulation, reflected patients' strengths, preferences and goals, and demonstrated meaningful patient involvement in treatment planning. Patients had access to a range of therapeutic interventions, including psychology and occupational therapy, to support the development of daily living and independent living skills.
Staff treated patients with compassion, kindness and respect and promoted dignity, choice and independence. Feedback from patients and carers was generally positive, with many describing supportive relationships with staff. Patients and, where appropriate, their families and carers were actively involved in decisions about care and treatment. The service also worked effectively with partner organisations to support discharge planning, and delays to discharge were uncommon unless clinically necessary.
The service had strengthened its approach to physical healthcare since the previous assessment and had addressed previous recommendations relating to physical health oversight and monitoring. Patients received appropriate physical health monitoring, including those prescribed high-dose antipsychotic medicines, and staff demonstrated a good understanding of physical health escalation processes. A dedicated physical health lead provided effective oversight and support to ensure patients' physical healthcare needs were identified and managed appropriately.
Leadership within the service was visible and focused on continuous improvement. Governance systems supported the monitoring of quality, safety, patient experience and outcomes. Staff used data, audits and quality improvement activities to evaluate and enhance the care provided. Managers worked collaboratively with local health and social care partners, including NHS services, to promote coordinated and integrated care.
While some improvements were required to strengthen documentation consistency, record accessibility and the timely updating of risk assessments following significant events, these issues were not widespread and did not impact the overall quality and safety of care provided.
Overall, the service was well led and delivered safe, effective, caring and recovery-focused care that supported patients to achieve meaningful progress towards greater independence and improved quality of life.
People's experience of this service
During the assessment, we spoke with 6 patients and 2 relatives to understand their experiences of care and treatment at the service.
Feedback was mixed. Many people spoke positively about the kindness, commitment and support provided by staff. Patients and relatives described staff as caring, approachable and responsive. Several people told us staff had supported them to make progress in their recovery. One relative described the service as "by far over and above any other service" their family member had experienced and said staff had helped their relative achieve a level of stability not previously seen despite many years of mental health treatment. Another relative told us they trusted the staff team and felt the service provided a safe and inclusive environment.
Patients told us they had opportunities to participate in activities both on and off the ward, including cooking sessions, educational opportunities and community outings. Some patients spoke positively about access to occupational therapy and support from staff. Relatives also described examples of staff going above and beyond to support patients and families.
Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Compliance
The service delivered care within an appropriate legal framework and had systems in place to support compliance with the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA) and Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the MCA, including its five statutory principles, and were able to describe how these were applied in practice. Staff were aware of how to access internal advice and guidance in relation to the MCA and DoLS where required. They have good understanding of their responsibilities under both frameworks and were able to describe how patients' rights, consent and decision-making were considered in practice.
Patients were supported to understand their legal status and rights, and staff sought consent appropriately and assessed mental capacity where required.
Although we identified some areas where the recording and accessibility of legal documentation could be improved, including some capacity assessments and Mental Health Act records. There was no evidence that these issues adversely affected patient care, treatment or the protection of patients' rights. Staff applied the principles of the MHA and MCA appropriately and governance arrangements supported ongoing monitoring and compliance.
The provider had established systems and processes to monitor adherence to the MHA and MCA. Audit findings indicated that detention and treatment authorisation processes were generally applied lawfully and appropriately recorded.
Training in both the Mental Capacity Act and Mental Health Act was mandatory. Compliance with Mental Capacity Act training was 96% at the time of inspection, while Mental Health Act training compliance was 94.4%.