Forest Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

This means we looked for evidence that the service met patients’ needs. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection and assessment, the rating has remained as good. This meant the service made sure patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, patients could get information and advice that was accurate, up-to-date and accessible, patients or their families knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support, the service made sure that patients could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it and patients’ care, treatment and support promoted equality, removed barriers or delays and protected their rights..

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

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

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with patients, how to respond to any relevant changes in patients’ needs.

Patients’ care plans fully reflected their physical, mental, emotional and social needs. Care plans reviewed were tailored to each patient, setting out their support requirements, communication needs, risks, and preferred routines. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the adjustments required to deliver care in a way that met these needs.

Patients received the most appropriate care and treatment for them as the service made reasonable adjustments where necessary. Patients’ day‑to‑day support was reviewed through regular multidisciplinary meetings and ongoing staff communication. Records evidenced timely responses to emerging needs, including physical health concerns, behavioural changes, and environmental adjustments. Staff proactively sought input from external professionals to ensure patients received the right support at the right time. The service made reasonable adjustments to ensure care remained patient‑centred and responsive. For example, staff used the Bradford Well‑being Profile, an observational tool that monitors and records the psychological and social wellbeing of individuals, particularly those living with dementia.

Patients wh and those close to them (including carers and dependants) were regularly involved in planning and making shared decisions about their care and treatment, so it was centred around them and their needs. Carers told us they were actively involved in their loved one’s care. Staff shared examples of how they worked collaboratively with carers to support individuals’ routines and preferences. For instance, one carer regularly took their relative to a local swimming pool, and staff facilitated this by providing support with attendance and transport using the hospital minibus.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of patients and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Patients’ care and treatment was delivered in a way that meets their assessed needs from services that were co-ordinated and responsive. Although discharges were infrequent, the service had clear processes for planning transitions. The most recent discharge showed effective collaboration with external agencies, families, and receiving services. Information was shared promptly, and a phased approach was taken to ensure continuity and minimise anxiety for the individual.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Patients could get information and advice that was accurate, up-to-date and provided in a way that they understood and which met their communication needs. Staff provided easy read information and a monthly newsletter for families and carers including dates for planned activities. One family member raised that they didn’t know what their relative was doing so the service now sends monthly updates with pictures of what their loved one has been up to. Staff communicated with patients in a way that was appropriate, respectful, and tailored to their level of understanding. Staff adapted their communication style to ensure individuals could engage, feel reassured, and fully understand the support being offered.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for patients to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved patients in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Patients and their families knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support including how to raise any concerns or issues. Senior leaders talked to patients in community meetings about what is happening at the service and gave an example of when the service was refurbished, staff talked to patients in advance to prepare them for what was happening to minimise disruption and distress. The service shared records of their ‘You said, we did’ process and we reviewed from December 2025 to February 2026. We saw evidence that staff acted on issues raised by patients in relation to activities and food.

Where improvements were required, patients had the opportunity to be involved in shaping the solutions. Staff promoted patient involvement and co‑production across all areas of care. Patients helped develop mutual expectations and created one‑page profiles for both staff and patients. Patients co‑designed activities and outings with the OT. The service was working collaboratively with patients on Positive Behaviour Support, Active Support, culture of care standards, and clinical governance. Patients were also fully involved in the unit refurbishment, contributing to design choices.

The provider reported between 01 March 2025 and 28 February 2026 no complaints were received. However, 3 concerns were raised by patients and 1 by a carer. Senior leaders advised they picked up concerns in community meetings and met with the patient to discuss. All 4 concerns were resolved informally. One of the concerns from a patient related to a request for more traditional meal options on the menu which was addressed straight away with immediate changes to the menu options.

The provider reported between 01 March 2025 and 28 February 2026 26 compliments were received. Compliments included praise for outstanding care and well-being support for patients and well led support from managers to staff.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that patients could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Patients could expect their care, treatment and support to be accessible, timely and in line with best practice, quality standards and legal requirements, including those on equality and human rights. This included making reasonable adjustments for disabled patients, addressing communication barriers and having accessible premises. The ward was adapted to meet needs of patients with dementia, with colour coded decor to enable patients to move around, for example, blue doors were for bathrooms and toilets. The service provided specialist chairs for patients with Huntington’s. The ward was very spacious with wide corridors and an accessible bathroom.

Patients were given support to overcome barriers to ensure equal access. The OT accessed equipment for patients, for example, heightened toilet seats, grab rails, standing aids and hoists etc. Senior leaders told us the service adapted to patients needs and provided any additional training to staff to meet patients identified needs before they were admitted. The OT supported assessments of potential admissions for any patient that might require additional equipment or adaptations.

The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about patients who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Patients’ care, treatment and support promoted equality, removed barriers or delays and protected their rights. Patients had their own bedrooms, all bedrooms had direct access to the garden. Patients were able to access their bedrooms throughout the day. One patient showed us their bedroom which they personalised with photographs of their family and their own items. Families reported that the service provided equitable access to care that met patients’ complex and individual needs. The environment was described as suitable, inclusive and well resourced, with staff making adjustments to promote wellbeing and engagement. Families expressed strong confidence that this was the right service for their relative and felt care exceeded expectations. Staff described accessing speech and language therapy to support patients’ communication needs.

The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, having regard to the needs of patients with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes. The environment was adapted to promote comfort and accessibility, and staff took steps to ensure patients’ individual preferences were integrated into daily life. Activities and routines were personalised and adapted to each patient’s abilities and interests. Staff accessed translation services when needed to support communication with patients and their families whose first language was not English.

The evidence showed a good standard. Patients were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Patients’ decisions and what matters to them were delivered through personalised care plans that are shared with others who may need to be informed. Staff assessments informed detailed, personalised care plans that reflected patients’ individual needs and preferences. Care plans showed proactive and responsive approaches to care, with regular review and adjustment based on ongoing assessments.

Patients who may be approaching the end of their life were identified (including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act and patients whose circumstances may make them vulnerable). This information was shared with other services and staff. We reviewed 2 patients who had been discharged from hospital back to the service on end-of-life care. Both patients lost a significant amount of weight during their hospital stay. The service implemented care plans to improve their physical health, including provision of fortified meals which resulted in an improved prognosis and the GP moved both patients from end-of-life care to palliative care.

When patients’ future care preferences were for greater independence and fewer care interventions that were likely to benefit them, professionals worked together to support them to achieve their goals. Although discharges were infrequent, evidence from the most recent discharge showed that transitions were planned effectively, involving appropriate collaboration with external agencies and family members. Information was shared promptly, and preparations were made to ensure the receiving service had all necessary details to continue care safely and effectively.