HMP Chelmsford

Date of assessment: 27 July to 30 July 2026.

HMP YOI Chelmsford is a local Category B male adult and young offenders’ institution. The prison is located in the city of Chelmsford and accommodates approximately 700 adult prisoners and young offenders. The healthcare services are provided by HCRG Care Services Ltd.

During a joint inspection with His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP), we carried out this announced focused inspection of healthcare services.

We previously inspected this service in February 2026 in response to information of concern. We found the service was not providing safe, effective, responsive or well-led care. We issued 2 warning notices for breaches of regulations relating to safe care and treatment, and good governance. The last inspection report can be found here https://www.cqc.org.uk/location/1-19677906365/reports/AP21928/overall

At this inspection in July 2026, we followed up on the actions taken in response to the warning notices. We found that the service had made improvements and the level of risk had reduced. While progress had been made, not all concerns had been fully addressed, and we issued 2 action plan requests for breaches relating to safe care and treatment, and good governance.

We assessed 9 quality statements across the safe, effective, responsive and well-led key questions. We found:

• The reporting and management of incidents, complaints, and clinical information had improved. Staff described a more positive reporting culture and backlogs had reduced significantly.
• Patient feedback was more positive than at the previous inspection, with patients describing healthcare staff as friendly, kind and supportive. However, patient engagement was not well coordinated and opportunities for patients to share their views remained limited.
• Medicines management had improved. Medicines were administered safely, records were complete, and monitoring arrangements had strengthened.
• Patients' needs were generally identified and assessed appropriately. New arrivals received timely health screening, the management of long-term conditions and wound care had improved, and access to mental health assessments had improved despite continued high demand.
• Patient records were not always accurate, complete or contemporaneous. Documentation relating to appointments, triage decisions, and emergency care was still inconsistent. The quality and personalisation of care plans for long-term conditions and mental health varied. Records did not always demonstrate that outcomes from external healthcare appointments had been effectively monitored and followed up.
• Patients could generally access care, treatment and support when they needed it. Feedback about appointment availability was more positive, and external hospital appointments were well coordinated. However, barriers to accessing healthcare were not always accurately recorded or monitored.
• Recruitment processes and staffing levels had improved. However, training compliance remained low in some key areas, including immediate life support and safeguarding, and staff did not always receive appropriate supervision.
• Governance and assurance arrangements had improved but remained inconsistent. Oversight of incidents, deaths, complaints and referrals required strengthening. There was a lack of evidence to demonstrate that learning had been identified, and improvements had been implemented and sustained. Quality improvement activity and audit processes were not always effective in driving improvement.
• Risk management arrangements did not always ensure longstanding risks were reviewed, escalated and progressed effectively. This included those requiring action through partnership arrangements, such as the condition of healthcare facilities.

• Staff feedback was significantly more positive than at the previous inspection, although experiences varied between teams. Most staff felt more comfortable raising concerns and described leaders as visible and approachable. Staff reported improvements in morale and culture, but further work was needed to rebuild trust and support staff wellbeing.

We do not currently rate services provided in prisons. We highlight good practice, identify areas requiring improvement, and take regulatory action where necessary.

Date of assessment: 2 to 10 February 2026. This included a site visit between 2 and 4 February 2026.

HMP YOI Chelmsford is a local Category B male adult and young offenders institution. The prison is located in the city of Chelmsford, England and accommodates approximately 700 adult prisoners and young offenders. The healthcare services are provided by HCRG Care Services Ltd.

We carried out this focused assessment in response to information of concern. We assessed 9 quality statements over the safe, effective, responsive and well-led key questions.

We found:

• Incidents and complaints were not always consistently recorded, reviewed or monitored.
• There was no formal or reliable safety‑netting system in place to make sure tasks, scanning and referrals were reviewed and acted on.
• Medicines management was mostly positive. However, some records about patients’ medicines were not always complete, and medicines and equipment were not always monitored to ensure their safety and effectiveness.
• Improvements were underway towards the response to patient emergencies, including a review of emergency bags and changes to communication practices.
• There were positive initiatives to identify people’s needs and provide holistic support for their health and wellbeing. Patients with diagnosed and undiagnosed neurodiversity needs received tailored support.
• Safe staffing levels were not consistently maintained because shortages were not accurately recorded.
• Staff recruitment checks were mostly completed in accordance with regulation but there were some gaps. There was a programme of learning and development for all staff.
• Patients did not always receive care and treatment that was assessed and regularly reviewed to ensure it met their health and well-being needs.
• Patients did not always have access to care, support and treatment they need when they need it.
• There was limited communication with patients about their appointment requests and ongoing care. However, there were plans to improve communication and access to information, including in-cell technology.
• Governance systems were not effectively identifying, assessing and addressing the full range of risks.
• Records were not always accurate, complete and contemporaneous in respect of each service user.
• Feedback from both healthcare staff and prison officers was consistently poor about staffing levels for healthcare, and the impact this had on team morale.
• There were indications of a closed culture. Concerns raised were not always recorded, responded to or addressed.
• The provider was aware of some of its challenges and were making improvements. They were responsive to our inspection concerns.

We found 2 breaches of regulation. We issued warning notices to HCRG Care Services Ltd for failing to meet the regulations concerning safe care and treatment, and good governance.

We do not currently rate services provided in prisons. We highlight good practice, identify areas requiring improvement, and take regulatory action where necessary.