- Independent mental health service
Sturdee Community Hospital
Assessment report published 26 February 2026
Contents
Ratings - Long stay or rehabilitation mental health wards for working age adults
Our view of the service
This assessment took place from 6 June 2025 to 4 September 2025. During our assessment we visited the service on 5 and 6 August 2025. Sturdee Community Hospital is an independent hospital providing care and treatment to up to 31 female patients, who have complex mental health needs, with a focus upon rehabilitation. The hospital consists of 2 wards and 9 flats. Foxton ward is a 7-bed rehabilitation ward. Rutland ward has 15 beds and is a step-down rehabilitation ward. Aylestone consists of 9 self-contained flats designed to support patients for independent living and ultimately for discharge. There were 21 patients at the hospital at the time of this inspection.
The service was registered to provide treatment of disease, disorder or injury and assessment or medical treatment for persons detained under the Mental Health Act 1983.
There was a registered manager in post at the time of this inspection.
This was an unannounced assessment, which meant the service was not told an assessment was going to be taking place beforehand. During this assessment we looked at all quality statements across all 5 key questions. As we assessed all quality statements at this visit the current rating reflects the findings from this assessment.
At our last assessment in April 2024 this service was rate as Good. The provider was in breach of legal regulations in relation to good governance.
We rated the service Requires Improvement. The provider was in breach of 2 legal regulations in relation to, safe care and treatment (regulation 12), and good governance (regulation 17).
Patients were not always protected from harm or the risk of harm because the management of enhanced observations was not always carried out in line with the providers policy and resulted in some staff feeling stressed and tired.
Some staff did not feel listened to and feared harassment and bullying if they raised concerns. Other staff reported improvements to staff morale and better patient care since the new management and leadership team were put in place.
There were unmanaged risks in the environment, medicine management and infection prevention and control. The premises and environment were in need of refurbishment, redecoration and improvements in order to meet patients’ needs in a safe way and to provide an improved patient experience.
Staff were motivated to improve and provide good care, treatment and support. Staff managed patients with complex and long term needs well and with a determined effort to explore innovative ways to meet patients’ needs and promote recovery and quality of life.
Leadership and governance was not always effective in identifying all risks or making the required changes and improvements. However, the leadership team were responsive and took immediate action to rectify many of the issues and concerns we identified. The registered manager was new in post and was developing systems and processes to improve, including reviewing and addressing long standing cultural concerns.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Compliance Summary
Patients were detained for treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983.
Staff received training on the Mental Health Act and the Mental Health Act Code of Practice and could describe the Code of Practice guiding principles. Training on the Mental Health Act was mandatory for all staff.
Staff had access to support and advice on implementing the Mental Health Act and the Code of Practice.
The service had the relevant policies and procedures that reflected all relevant legislation and the Mental Health Act Code of Practice. The service had developed procedures for the implementation of the specific sections of the Act. These procedures each included a checklist for staff to complete to support legal compliance.
Staff requested an opinion from a Second Opinion Appointed Doctor (SOAD) when they needed to. SOAD’s were requested by the patient’s responsible clinician.
Staff stored copies of patients’ detention papers and associated records correctly and could access them when needed.
Managers and staff made sure the service applied the Mental Health Act 1983 correctly by completing audits and discussing the findings.
Staff received training about the Mental Capacity Act. Training on the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were incorporated into mandatory training on Mental Health Law.
Individuals’ capacity to make decisions was monitored and recorded. There were no patients subject to any deprivation of liberty restrictions at the time of this inspection.
People's experience of this service
We spoke with 8 patients and 2 carers (family members) We received mixed feedback from patients and carers we spoke with. Most patients told us they felt safe and knew who to inform if they did not. Some patients felt staff did not always believe them when they raised concerns.
They told us the quality of care, treatment and support varied depending on which staff were on duty. They described some staff as kind and helpful and some staff as rude and did not always not listen to them or take their concerns seriously. A frequent issue mentioned was staff spending a lot of time in the office and not engaging with them. Most patients said they attended ward rounds so their care treatment and support could be reviewed by the multidisciplinary team. One patient said, ‘the doctor asks my opinion and is very open and honest’. Another patient did not feel listened to at ward rounds.
Patients had good access to healthcare such as a GP and told us about the physical health nurse interventions, including group meetings to discuss different topics such as sexual health and routine health checks.
Many patients felt the quality of meals could be improved and said it depended on who was cooking each day.
Patients were able to access work and education. There was mixed feedback on activities available.
Patients knew how to complain and had access to advocacy services. However, not all patients had confidence they would be listened to. They were given information about their rights under the Mental Health Act.
Monthly community meetings were held to seek feedback from patients. However, some patient did not feel issues raised at these meetings were also responded to or resolved. Patient representatives attend clinical governance meetings.
One carer we spoke was positive about the service and said communication was good and staff were caring, another carer told us communication was poor.