Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust

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 people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

Good: This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. However staff worked in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Young people told us how the environment was not helpful if you had heightened sensory sensitivities, for example bright lighting, and toilets that were not soundproofed next to the sensory room.

Young people told us they were not involved in the creation of their care plans, although staff showed them their care plans, they were not involved in the content, and they were not written in a language they would use.

However young people told us that this service was better than previous services they had accessed. They said staff listened more and developed more individualised plans than other services.

Young people told us that they enjoyed activities such as the walking group and the arts and crafts activities, and that staff were helpful by printing off pictures that they liked so they could colour them.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff ensured that young people had access to education. There was education provision in the service. Teachers contributed to young people’s reviews to update on progress, and we saw them contribute to discharge planning for young people, in relation to engaging with young people’s schools to have as seamless a transition as possible.

Staff supported young people to maintain contact with their families and carers. Visiting was welcomed at the service, and this could take place in young people’s rooms. However, visiting was restricted on Mondays and Thursdays.

Some young people had overnight leave at their home with their families.

The service had good links with the Ronald McDonald Manchester House where families could stay when visiting their loved one. This was particularly welcomed by families living a distance away.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of young people records. Staff had individual logs ins to access the electronic care records.

Staff ensured that young people could obtain information on treatments, local services, young peoples’ rights, how to complain and so on. There was colourful and welcoming information on display on the ward, including how to give feedback and action the service had taken following feedback.

The information provided was in a form accessible to this particular young people group. The welcome booklet included pictures of the environment, and a sample timetable so young people knew what to expect at the service.

Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by young people. We saw Mental Health Act information in different languages and the interpreter and translation service could translate any required documents.

Staff ensured carers, families and commissioners were regularly updated about the young people’s progress. Families had weekly sessions with the lead consultant to discuss the progress of their loved one. Commissioners told us the service was responsive to their requests.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed. However, there were some unnecessary notifications of young people going absent without leave that they were not required to report to CQC as that is just for secure services. We raised this with the appropriate staff during the assessment.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

There had been no complaints to the service in last 12 months. However low-level feedback that had been received in the community meetings including environmental challenges and food were being addressed with the appropriate department.

The service had received 36 compliments from March 2025 to December 2025, these included from students on placement, external colleagues, families and young people. Positive feedback was regarding the support and treatment they received and particularly valuing the input from family therapists, supporting the whole family to improve their relationships and be prepared for the future.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff ensured the needs of young people with mobility issues were met. All rooms were on the ground floor, and there was equipment available for those who required it which included hoists, wheelchairs and adjustable beds.

There was adequate medical cover day and night. A doctor could attend the ward quickly in an emergency and the hospital was on the grounds of the acute hospital.

Staff ensured young people had access to post-discharge care, for example community mental health services. We saw that community teams were involved in young people’s reviews and discharge planning.

Staff planned for young people’s discharge, including good liaison with community teams, education and families.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. Minutes showed that young people shared their experiences in the weekly community meetings and in 1 to 1 discussions with staff.

The provider had undertaken equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage. A summary of the assessment was included within the policies.

Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights, with 100% compliance.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People 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.

Staff supported young people to make decisions about their care and treatment and their future, for example we saw in a review, the young person was involved in deciding which lesson they wanted to attend as part of their discharge and reintegration in their school.

Staff created care plans to account for the young people’s needs, wishes and feelings. These included preferences about the administration of nasogastric feeds.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs. This included community teams and the full involvement of the multidisciplinary team.