- Independent mental health service
Elizabeth House
Assessment report published 13 November 2025
Contents
Ratings - Acute wards for adults of working age and psychiatric intensive care units
Our view of the service
This assessment for acute wards for adults of working age provided at Elizabeth House took place in September and October 2025.
Elizabeth House is a hospital based in Leicester and can accommodate up to 30 people who are experiencing an acute episode of mental illness and require an admission to hospital for assessment, treatment and stabilisation. Patients may be informal or detained under the Mental Health Act (1983).
The hospital has 30 beds over three wards:
- King ward – accommodates up to 15 males
- Castle ward – accommodates up to 10 females
- Swithland ward – accommodates up to 5 patients, males or females, depending upon the need for referrals received.
At the time of our assessment, King and Castle wards were open.
The hospital is registered to provider the following activities:
- Treatment of disease, disorder or injury
- Assessment or medical treatment for person’s detained under the Mental Health Act 1983.
There was a registered manager in place at the time of this assessment.
At our last assessment the provider had been in breach of Regulation 9: Person Centred Care; Regulation 12: Safe Care and Treatment; Regulation 17: Good Governance; Regulation 11: Need for Consent and Regulation 18: Staffing.
At this assessment we did not identify any breaches under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We rated this hospital as good.
Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Compliance Summary
Mental Health Act
Staff understood their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health Act Code of Practice and discharged these well. The service had a full time Mental Health Act administrator who ensured all patients were detained legally. They maintained oversight of all detention documentation to ensure staff adhered to the Mental Health Act Code of Practice. During office hours, the Mental Health Act administrator scrutinised all relevant documentation for new patients detained under the Act. Out of hours, this responsibility was passed to the nurse in charge. Comprehensive checklists for receiving detention papers were available in the nursing offices for staff to refer too.
Staff explained to each patient their rights under the Mental Health Act in a way that they could understand, repeated as necessary and recorded it clearly in the patient’s notes each time. Information about patients’ rights under the Mental Health Act were displayed in ward areas on notice boards. Staff made sure patients could take section 17 leave (permission to leave the hospital) when this had been agreed with the Responsible Clinician.
Patients had access to independent mental health advocacy. The hospital worked with a provider and made regular referrals to ensure patients were supported. Advocates visited the hospital regularly and attended MDT meetings and managers hearings upon request.
For patients detained under the Mental Health Act, responsible clinicians had completed the appropriate statutory certificates authorising treatment. Second opinion appointed doctors (SOAD’s) authorised treatment when patients lacked capacity to consent. The responsible clinicians explained this process to patients. The electronic notes system had an alert which notified the user when consent to treatment was due.
The service had relevant policies and procedures in place relating to the Mental Health Act (1983), with easy access to the Code of Practice. Staff received and kept up to date with training in the Mental Health Act, which was mandatory for all care staff. At time of assessment, compliance was 100%. The Mental Health Act administrator regularly audited documentation relating to the Mental Health Act to ensure best practice was followed.
Mental Capacity Act
Staff supported patients to make decisions around their care and treatment. Staff assumed capacity, in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff gave patients all possible support to make specific decisions for themselves before deciding a patient did not have the capacity to do so. When the MDT had doubts about a patient’s capacity to make a specific decision, relevant capacity assessments were completed. The service had relevant policies and procedures in place relating to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
Staff received and kept up to date with training in the Mental Capacity Act, which was mandatory for all care staff. At time of assessment, compliance was 100%. It was evident during staff interviews, that they had an awareness about the Act and the key principles.
The Mental Health Act administrator was available to offer advice regarding the Mental Capacity Act, and discussions around potential Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard applications. The Mental Health Act administrator regularly audited documentation relating to the Mental Capacity Act to ensure best practice was followed.
People's experience of this service
At time of assessment there were 13 patients across the hospital. We spoke with 6 of these. All patients were complimentary of the food provided. Patients we spoke with felt safe at the hospital.
All patients told us there were many activities they could choose to participate in, both in the wards and outside of the hospital. Patients told us about activities they had recently undertaken. This included going to the cinema, bowling and using a local gym.
Most patients told us there were enough staff to meet their needs. One patient said that sometimes they had to wait a while for staff to sort out their paperwork before going on leave, but said they tried to be patient as they knew staff were busy.
One patient was unhappy with their medicines but said this had been discussed with the doctor at length. They understood why it had been prescribed but did not really agree with this.
One patient said they thought some staff were “risk adverse” and put patients on enhanced observations “for the slightest thing”.
We spoke with 6 carers of people that were either at the hospital or had been cared for at the hospital. All carers were positive about the care and treatment their relatives had received. Positive feedback included carers being facilitated to visit. One carer said they had been unable to visit, due to the distance, but staff had facilitated video calls, which they appreciated.
Where patients had given consent, staff shared information with carers. Some carers we spoke with had attended MDT meetings virtually.
Carers talked about a range of activities the service offered, both in and outside of the hospital. One carer was very complimentary about the staff, describing them as “great…very accommodating”. Staff had passed them some tissues during a visit when they had become upset. One carer spoke highly of the psychologist, and one care said the consultant was “brilliant”.