HMP Leicester

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We assessed 1 quality statement for this key question. We found the service had made sufficient progress to address the regulatory breaches found at our previous assessment. Governance arrangements had been strengthened and new processes introduced, however the provider needed to ensure regular oversight of tasks.

Find out what we look at when we assess this area in our information about our new Single assessment framework.

The judgement for Shared direction and culture is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Freedom to speak up is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

At our previous assessment we found there was insufficient oversight of task management to ensure their timely monitoring, action, and completion. As a result, delays were not always promptly identified and mitigated.

During this assessment, we found that the management of tasks within the electronic patient record system had improved. However, the provider still needed to ensure regular oversight, as some tasks had been actioned or were no longer relevant but had not been formally closed. At the time of the assessment the oldest task was 24 days old, however evidence demonstrated that key tasks, including prescribing-related actions, were being managed effectively. While we were on site, the provider took action to address these issues, including implementing measures to strengthen the process and improve oversight.

At our previous assessment we found that patients were not formally recorded on the clinical system as being under the Care Programme Approach (CPA) despite meeting the threshold criteria and that information about sexual health services was not stored on a confidential, standalone IT system.

At this inspection we found no concern about patients being formally recorded under the Care Programme Approach (CPA) which also included those waiting to be transfer under the Mental Health Act. Compliance with CPA was monitored daily by the mental health lead.

At the time of this assessment, we found that a new process for the recording of sexual health clinical notes had been introduced; however, no patients had accessed these since its implementation, and therefore we were unable to assess its effectiveness in practice. Staff told us that, as part of the process, patients would be asked whether they consented to their sexual health clinical notes being recorded in the main clinical record. Where consent was not provided, the notes would be recorded as a private entry, helping to ensure that access was restricted and viewed only by authorised staff.

The judgement for Partnerships and communities is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Learning, improvement and innovation is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.