Kneesworth House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. Staff managed beds well. A bed was available when a patient needed one. Patients were not moved between wards except for their benefit. Patients did not have to stay in hospital when they were well enough to leave. The service met the needs of all patients – including those with a protected characteristic. Staff helped patients with communication, advocacy and cultural and spiritual support. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the result.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff regularly meet with patients to understand their views on care and treatment. These discussions took place in one-to-one meetings with nurses and in multidisciplinary team meetings. Staff monitored patients’ conditions and discussed any changes at handover meetings.

The service provided therapeutic and recreational activities to meet the needs and personal interests of patients. A timetable of appropriate therapeutic activities was shared with patients. Patients said they had participated in art, food preparation sessions, played games and watched films.

Patients had access to psychology input either in groups or 1-1 sessions. Psychology groups were based around cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and supported patients with emotional management and coping strategies. Psychology staff provided relapse prevention work and screening for ADHD and autism.

Psychology staff provided an example of how they could respond to patient’s needs whereby they could facilitate 1-1 sessions walking while off the ward to support patients with neurodiverse needs who found it difficult to participate in sessions within the ward environment.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

This service admitted patients for relatively short periods of time, usually around a few months. The purpose of the service was to stabilise patients experiencing an acute episode of mental illness.

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with their families and carers. All patients we spoke to told us they were supported to maintain contact with the people who were important to them. Staff told us they were able to support visits from children in an area away from the ward environment.

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with people in their local area. Staff ensured family members and care co-ordinators were invited to multidisciplinary team meetings. The service facilitated attendance by video link if people were unable to attend the hospital in person.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed. The service submitted notifications to the Care Quality Commission in accordance with the requirements of their registration. The service also submitted safeguarding referrals to the local authority.

Leaders had access to information to support them with their management role. This included information on the performance of the service, staffing and patient care. This information was presented and discussed in clinical governance meetings.

Staff made sure patients could access information on treatment and local services. Staff explained that information was provided for patients if it was needed. Staff displayed information about safeguarding, infection control, the Mental Health Act and the independent mental health advocacy service.

Staff ensured commissioners were regularly updated about the patient’s progress, however relatives and carers told us they did not always receive updates from staff, and some found it hard to get through on the telephone to speak to staff.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Patients and staff participated in regular community meetings on the wards. The patients and staff we spoke to told us that community meetings were useful and meaningful. The meetings allowed an open culture on the wards where both patients and staff could raise issues, discuss actions taken and suggest solutions. One example where patient feedback led to change was patients reported they did not like the coffee that was available. This was raised in community meeting and the result was that the coffee was changed.

Patients, relatives and carers knew how to complain or raise concerns. Patients said if they had any complaints, they would speak with nursing staff, their doctor or the ward manager in the first instance. Leaders shared learning from complaints with all staff.

The service clearly displayed information about how to raise a concern in patient areas. Staff understood the policy on complaints and knew how to handle them. Each complaint was assigned to an individual investigator.

During the period January 2025 to August 2025 the acute and psychiatric intensive care service received 9 complaints. One of the complaints was partially upheld, 3 had not completed review as they were raised in August 2025, and 5 complaints were not upheld. Patients received feedback after the investigation into their complaint. Themes from the complaints included quality of care, discharge planning concerns and food. The resolved complaints that showed dates of completion were completed within a 20-day time frame.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service had adequate medical cover day and night, a doctor could attend the ward quickly in an emergency and the hospital was within a reasonable travelling distance to 2 local acute hospitals.

Staff ensured patients had access to post-discharge care, including section 117 aftercare, community mental health services and crisis services. Staff planned for patients’ discharge, which included good liaison with care co-ordinators.

Discharge was rarely delayed for other than clinical reasons. Staff told us occasionally discharge could be delayed where there had been extenuating circumstances with external agencies, such as funding disagreements or issues with patients being accepted by housing providers.

The service was not accessible to all patients including those with restricted mobility and wheelchair users. Wimpole and Bourn wards were situated on the ground floor. However, Nightingale ward was based on the first floor, so could not accept anyone with reduced mobility or wheelchair users. This was clearly defined in the referral criteria. One patient on Wimpole told us that the disabled toilet did not have an emergency pull cord.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Timeframes from referral to assessment and admission were fast paced due to the nature of the service and given the fact that some patients could be in crisis at the time of referral. Staff told us the service often reviewed referrals and decided to accept or decline within 1 hour.

The service admitted patients from diverse religious and cultural backgrounds. Staff asked patients about their religious and cultural needs when they were admitted to the ward. The service provided culturally appropriate food. The service employed staff from diverse backgrounds. This meant the service was able to utilise the ability of staff to speak to patients in their first language whenever this was possible.

Staff were trained in diversity and inclusion. Staff compliance with this training was 98.9%.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs. The multi-disciplinary teams within the service were made up of consultant psychiatrists, specialty doctors, nurses, healthcare support workers, psychologists, occupational therapists and other support staff.

The multidisciplinary team planned for each patient’s discharge and return to their local area. Staff ensured that appropriate arrangements were in place to sustain the patient’s mental health. This included liaising with other professionals in the patient’s local area to ensure they had appropriate accommodation to be discharged to and that a package of care was provided by the local mental health services.