The Langford Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

This means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good.

Staff assessed the physical and mental health of all patients on admission, and they developed individual care plans. Staff provided a range of treatment and care for patients based on national guidance and best practice. The ward team included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of patients on the ward. Staff from different disciplines worked together as a team to benefit patients. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health Act Code of Practice and discharged these well.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Effective.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

We looked at 6 patient records during the assessment and found that staff had completed admission and nursing assessments of the patients in a timely manner at, or soon after, admission for five of them.

We found evidence in all the patient records we looked at that staff were completing initial risk assessments on admission, which staff then used to inform the creation of care plans, such as safety plans to manage risks.

Staff developed care plans that met the needs identified during assessment. Care plans were personalised, holistic and recovery orientated. While we identified that some improvement was needed around the frequency they were being reviewed and evaluated, care plans covered the needs of the patients. We found evidence of good psychology input and they included outcome measures.

All of the patient records we reviewed had evidence of patients involvement. Patient views were present in all the records we saw.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health Act Code of Practice and discharged these well.

Staff provided a range of care and treatment interventions suitable for the patient group. These included medication, psychological therapies, and occupational therapy input. The multidisciplinary team oversaw the care and treatment provided to each patient. Members of the multidisciplinary team described to us how they supported patients by offering sessions co-produced with patients tailored to their needs. We observed that such sessions and activities were discussed during the daily multidisciplinary meetings.

The staff working at the hospital were qualified and experienced in working with the patient group admitted to the ward. Staff ensured that patients had good access to physical healthcare, including access to specialists when needed. Patients had access to doctors including consultant psychiatrists.

Managers provided new staff with an appropriate induction. The provider had devised induction plans tailored to specific roles, which were signed off by the staff member and their supervisors when completed.

Managers provided staff with supervision and appraisal of their work performance. At the time of our visit 97% of staff had received their annual appraisal. For most of the months between March 2025 to February 2026, the percentage of completed supervisions was 100%.

Staff told us that managers were supportive. Managers identified the learning needs of staff and provided them with opportunities to develop their skills and knowledge and ensured that staff received the necessary specialist training for their roles.

Mental Health Act

Staff were trained in and had a good understanding of the Mental Health Act, the Code of Practice and the guiding principles. At the time of the inspection all Pevensey ward staff had received training in the Mental Health Act.

Staff had easy access to administrative support and legal advice on implementation of the Mental Health Act and its Code of Practice. There were Mental Health Act administrators at the hospital who were available to offer advice and support to the team and staff knew how to contact them. The provider had relevant policies and procedures that reflected the most recent guidance.

The patients had access to Mental health Act advocates if they wanted support from them.

We reviewed six patient records and found that staff had 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 that patients were able to take Section 17 leave when the doctor has granted this to a patient. Section 17 leave is the only way a detained patient can legally leave the hospital for an agreed period of time.

Staff stored copies of patients' detention papers and associated records appropriately and so that they were available to all staff that needed access to them. Staff did regular audits to ensure that the Mental Health Act was being applied correctly. Mental Health Act audits were also carried out by external professionals. We saw that the outcome letter of the last audit before our inspection, stated that all patients were legally detained, and that the related documentation was of a high standard.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff held regular multidisciplinary meetings. There were a range of meetings, such as daily morning meetings, staff meetings, patient safety and clinical governance meetings, where staff discussed patient needs, identified changes to risk and planned the upcoming shifts together.

Staff we spoke with told us that the different professionals worked well together on the ward and across the hospital. They told us that they were working well with members of the multi-disciplinary team who understood the needs to the patients well.

Staff were liaising with teams outside the organisation when appropriate. For example, we saw evidence of staff communicating with a supported accommodation service about a future discharge option for a patient.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff supported patients to live healthier lives. For example, through participation in smoking cessation schemes and healthy eating advice. Staff were completing staying healthy care plans for patients based on individual needs. For example, a patient had a specific plan in place for weight management.

Ward activities helped promote a healthy lifestyle for patients. We saw that during our visit a group of patients went out on an activity called health walk. Staff arranged hospital and GP appointments and supported the patients to attend them.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Staff used recognised rating scales to assess and record severity and outcomes. For example, doctors told us that they used the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS), the Hamilton rating scale for depression, and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. Specifically for the Pevensey ward, which is a forensic service, the Historical, Clinical, Risk Management-20 tool was also used. This allowed staff to follow the patients progress and make any changes needed to the patients treatment.

We reviewed 6 patient records and saw that members of the multidisciplinary team were using various tools and questionnaires to measure outcomes. For example, the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation 10 (CORE-10) questionnaire was used to assess and monitor levels of psychological distress, and the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) to measure outcomes for occupation therapy input over time.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff took all practical steps to enable patients to make their own decisions and worked with the patients to get consent for their treatment plans. Staff assessed all patients to see if they had the capacity to consent to their treatment. Staff involved patients in making decisions unless they lacked capacity to do so. Staff worked with patients to explain their treatment in ways that they could understand.

For patients who might have impaired mental capacity, staff assessed and recorded capacity to consent appropriately. They did this on a decision-specific basis with regard to significant decisions. When patients lacked capacity, staff made decisions in their best interests, recognising the importance of the person’s wishes, feelings, culture and history. We reviewed an audit that was completed for the month prior to our visit and saw that all capacity assessments for patients on Pevensey ward had been completed within the past 6 months.