Kneesworth House

Ratings - Long stay or rehabilitation mental health wards for working age adults

• Overall

  Good

• Safe

  Good

• Effective

  Good

• Caring

  Good

• Responsive

  Good

• Well-led

  Good

Our view of the service

The assessment of long stay or rehabilitation mental health wards for working age adults took place on 12 August to 14 August 2025. This assessment service group was made up of 1 rehabilitation ward called Wortham and 4 rehabilitation bungalows Pelican, Herron, Falcon and Phoenix wards. Autistic people and people with learning disabilities lived in some of the bungalows, so we assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance. This supports us to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

Wortham ward had a capacity of 17 patients and had 11 male patients on the ward at the time of inspection. Each of the bungalows had 1 patient, all patients were male.

We rated the service as good. The service had made improvements and is no longer in breach of regulations. All emergency equipment was properly stored, and easily accessible and all staff knew where to locate it.

Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Compliance Summary

Ninety five percent of staff had received training in the Mental Health Act

Staff were trained and had a good understanding of the Mental Health Act, the Code of Practice and the guiding principles.

Staff had easy access to administrative support and legal advice on implementation of the Mental Health Act and its Code of Practice. Staff knew their Mental Health Act administrators.

The provider had relevant policies and procedures that reflected the most recent guidance.

Staff had easy access to local Mental Health Act policies and procedures and to the Code of Practice.

Patients had easy access to information about independent mental health advocacy.

Staff explained to patients their rights under the Mental Health Act in a way that they could understand, repeated it as required and recorded that they had done it.

Staff ensured patients took their Section 17 leave (permission for patients to leave hospital) when this has been granted.

Staff requested an opinion from a second opinion appointed doctor when necessary.

Staff stored copies of patients' detention papers and associated records (for example, Section 17 leave forms) correctly and available to all staff that needed access to them.

The service displayed a notice to tell informal patients that they could leave the ward freely.

Care plans referred to identified Section 117 aftercare services to be provided for those who had been subject to section 3 or equivalent Part 3 powers authorising admission to hospital for treatment.

Staff did regular audits to ensure that the Mental Health Act was being applied correctly and there was evidence of learning from those audits.

Mental Capacity Act

Staff had had training in the Mental Capacity Act. Training compliance figures across the hospital were 95.5%.

Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, in particular the five statutory principles.
The provider had a policy on the Mental Capacity Act, including deprivation of liberty safeguards. Staff were aware of the policy and had access to it.

Staff knew where to get advice regarding the Mental Capacity Act, including deprivation of liberty safeguards.

Staff took all practical steps to enable patients to make their own decisions. For patients who might have impaired mental capacity, staff assessed and recorded capacity to consent appropriately. When patients lacked capacity, staff made decisions in their best interests, recognising the importance of the person’s wishes, feelings, culture and history.

The service had arrangements to monitor adherence to the Mental Capacity Act.

People's experience of this service

We spoke with 3 carers and 2 patients and captured feedback relating to the ward and bungalows.

Patients told us that staff were kind; they met their staff regularly and had good relationships mostly with their staff and doctors. One patient told us they were involved in their care and treatment and there was information on how to obtain an advocate. They felt safe. There was a timetable of activities on offer, trips, bingo, swimming, and cooking sessions. They had Caribbean week and Caribbean food was served. Restrictions were limited apart from not being able to smoke on the wards. Patients maintained contact with their families. There was no gym instructor, however, which was seen as a negative. Communication could be improved; 1 patient did not like the hospital food the other self-catered.

A carer told us staff on Wortham ward were kind, approachable and respectful. However, it was difficult to get through to the ward on the phone and communication was not regular enough. The visitors’ areas were not welcoming, and they did not know how to raise a complaint or find an independent advocate.

In the bungalows carers told us their loved ones were healthy and flourishing, bungalows were clean and welcoming, and the patients could choose their own food. Care was person-centred, carers felt people were safe, and they spoke to their loved one very regularly. Communication was very good, and carers were invited to online meetings. One carer said it was the best place their loved one had lived in 30 years. Staff were kind, caring and very considerate. Carers told us they were very impressed with the psychiatrist. People had access to gym equipment, there was a café on site, quiet room, farm and therapy dog, however as at Wortham, carers told us they did not know how to access an independent advocate.