- Independent mental health service
City and South Cambridgeshire Learning Disability Partnership
Assessment report published 30 July 2026
Contents
Ratings - Community mental health services for people with a learning disability or autism
Our view of the service
We assessed the City and South Learning Disability Partnership on 15 April 2026.
We assessed the service due to its aged rating. We found that the service had made improvements since the last inspection in January 2023 and was no longer in breach of regulations.
Cambridgeshire Learning Disability Partnership (LDP) has been registered with the Care Quality Commission since November 2016, and provides regulated activities for treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The Cambridgeshire LDP brings together specialist health and social care services for people with a learning disability. The LDP is responsible for commissioning and providing these services on behalf of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Integrated Care Board (Previously the CCG), and Cambridgeshire County Council. Social Care staff are employed by the County Council, and health staff are employed by Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust. There is a draft management agreement currently in place between both organisations which is actively being followed for the integrated service. The LDP directly provides access to specialist nurses, psychiatrists, psychologists, therapists, allied health professionals, social workers and social care staff through its integrated community teams, which cover the county from four locations:
• Huntingdon
• East Cambridgeshire
• Fenland
• South Cambridgeshire and City
At this assessment we assessed 1 assessment service group; Community Mental Health Services for People with Learning Disabilities or Autism, (to access support from the LDP all individuals must have a learning disability. People with a diagnosis of Autism would not meet the criteria for support without a dual diagnosis of a Learning Disability) where we assessed all quality statements across Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led key questions.
We have assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance 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.
We rated the service as good. The service had made improvements but is still in breach of regulations.
People are offered annual and regular health checks. There were environmental risk assessments in place and staff used two way radios in interview rooms. Staff were given regular supervision and appraisals. The service was meeting targets from referral to assessment for much of the time.
However, statutory notifications were not consistently submitted in line with regulatory requirements. This meant leaders did not always ensure full compliance with their legal responsibilities, and this required improvement.
People's experience of this service
We spoke with 1 person and 4 carers using services and reviewed comments and feedback from surveys.
One carer told us the team supporting their son were good and if they had any problems, they were easy to contact, including the psychiatrist. They told us the LDP team were helping their son to move to a new home where he could maintain his independence.
Another carer told us the staff were all very committed people. They shared that the occupational therapist was wonderful who supported her son with positive behaviour support sessions.
A carer told us the psychiatrist had been making fantastic suggestions, and their child had responded well. Their child required different medications in the summer, and staff were very aware of their needs at different times of the year.
A person who used services told us everything was great for them.
However, a carer told us there had been difficulty getting a speech and language therapist which was still ongoing. Another carer told us their child was putting on weight and there was no dietitian or healthy eating program, they were also waiting for a hospital passport. A carer told us the service was understaffed and had lacked a psychologist for a long time.
Mental Capacity Act (MCA)
100% of staff had had training in the Mental Capacity Act level 1 and 87.76% had completed training in Mental Capacity Act level 2.
Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA), of the five statutory principles.
When people lacked capacity, staff made decisions in their best interests, recognising the importance of the person’s wishes, feelings, culture and history. Staff took all practical steps to enable people to make their own decisions.
Staff reported that a best interests meeting had been conducted for an individual, involving an occupational therapist, nurse, and social worker.
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. 90% of staff had received training in the Mental Health Act Level 1, and 85.71% had completed the level 2 training.
The provider had relevant policies and procedures that reflected the most recent guidance.
People had easy access to information about independent mental health advocacy, we saw posters displayed in the reception area, and on each person’s care record there was a section to confirm if advocacy was required.
The service worked in line with the Integrated Care Board (ICB) providing section 117 aftercare. Section 117 aftercare is support and services to help people stay well after being detained for treatment under certain sections of the Mental Health Act.