- SERVICE PROVIDER
North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare NHS Trust
This is an organisation that runs the health and social care services we inspect
Assessment report published 6 August 2026
Contents
Ratings - Community-based mental health services for older people
Our view of the service
We completed an assessment of North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare NHS Trust community based mental health services for older people. We carried out a mix of onsite and offsite inspection and assessment activity between 28, 29 and 30 April 2026.
At this assessment we assessed 1 assessment service group: Community mental health services for older people, where we assessed 26 quality statements.
This was an announced assessment, which means the service was told an assessment was going to be starting beforehand.
Community mental health services for older people operated from 3 locations. We did not assess all the teams. During this assessment, we visited 5 of the teams, as follows:
City Memory Service – The Eaves, Marrow House, Dylan Road, Longton, Stoke-on-Trent ST3 1SQ.
County Memory Service – Lymebrook Centre, Talke Road, Bradwell Hospital, Chesterton, Newcastle-under-Lyme, ST5 7TL.
City Community Mental Health Team - The Eaves, Marrow House, Dylan Road, Longton, Stoke-on-Trent ST3 1SQ.
County Community Mental Health Team - Lymebrook Centre, Talke Road, Bradwell Hospital, Chesterton, Newcastle-under-Lyme, ST5 7NJ
Older People’s Outreach Team – Harplands Hospital, Hilton Road, Stoke on Trent, Staffordshire ST4 6TH.
The services comprised of City and County Community Mental Health Teams (CMHTs), City and County Memory services, Older People Outreach teams. The trust provides a Vascular Wellbeing Team and a Care Home Liaison Team which were not included in this assessment.
The previous assessment of North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare NHS Trust’s community-based mental health services for older people was conducted in September 2016. Following that assessment, the service received an overall rating of Outstanding. The key questions relating to Safe, Effective, and Well-led were rated good, while Caring and Responsive were rated outstanding. As part of this assessment and inspection, we reviewed the actions taken in response to the previous findings. We found that appropriate signage had been installed at the memory service location, addressing this area for improvement. The service had taken steps to improve access to clinical supervision since the previous inspection. However, further work was required to ensure that supervision was consistently recorded and that compliance with Trust supervision standards was maintained across all teams.
During this assessment, we saw good examples of care. Staff used technology, such as a blood pressure monitor linked to a mobile app to track readings and symptoms. The service was building relationships with different groups to improve access. For example, a clinician set up a transcultural clinic for older patients, including people from Asian backgrounds, and used assessment tools in Punjabi and Urdu. The Memory Service showed strong innovation. Staff developed a virtual reality tool to help others understand what delirium feels like, improving empathy and care. Staff were supported to make improvements. For example, Transfer of Care meetings were introduced to improve the patient journey and involve patients in planning their care.
However, areas for improvement were identified in relation to the monitoring of mandatory staff training and the completion of staff appraisals. Within the Older Persons Outreach Team, staff felt they were working under pressure, which was leading to poor staff morale.
Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Compliance Summary
Mental Health Act
Staff had received training in the Mental Health Act with a compliance rate between 89% to 100%. The trust compliance target rate was 85%
Staff were trained in and had a good understanding of the Mental Health Act, the Code of Practice and the guiding principles.
Staff had easy access to administrative support and legal advice on implementation of the Mental Health Act and its Code of Practice. Staff knew who their Mental Health Act administrators were.
The provider had relevant policies and procedures that reflected the most recent guidance.
Staff had easy access to local Mental Health Act policies and procedures and to the Code of Practice.
Patients had easy access to information about independent mental health advocacy.
Staff ensured that patients were informed of their rights under the Mental Health Act, in a way they could understand, revisited this information as necessary, and maintained records of these discussions.
Staff requested an opinion from a second opinion appointed doctor (SOAD) when necessary.
The trust undertook regular audits to monitor compliance with the Mental Health Act. At the March 2026 audit, compliance was measured at 97%, with clear evidence that learning from previous audits had been embedded into practice.
Mental Capacity Act
Mental Capacity Act training compliance ranged from 86% to 100%. The trust target rate was 85%.
Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about the statutory principles, including the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, and understood their responsibilities in applying them.
The provider had a policy on the Mental Capacity Act, including deprivation of liberty safeguards. Staff were aware of the policy and had access to it.
Staff knew where to get advice from within the trust regarding the Mental Capacity Act, including deprivation of liberty safeguards.
We saw clear and concise evidence of consent to treatment and capacity requirements recorded in care records.
Staff took all practical steps to enable patients to make their own decisions.
For patients who might have impaired mental capacity, staff assessed and recorded capacity to consent appropriately. These decisions were made in their best interest and documented in patients care records.
The trust undertook regular audits to monitor compliance with the Mental Capacity Act. At the March 2026 audit, compliance was measured at 97%, with clear evidence that learning from previous audits had been embedded into practice
People's experience of this service
We spoke with 17 patients and 2 carers across the service about their experience of care. Overall, people gave consistently positive feedback about their experience of the service. They described staff as kind, caring, helpful, understanding and knowledgeable, and said they felt treated with dignity and respect.
Patients told us staff provided clear information and explanations, particularly about their medication and treatment plans, helping them feel more confident and involved in decisions. Many patients also valued the information staff shared about local groups and support services, which helped them access additional support in the community.
The service was described as responsive and accessible. Patients said staff attended appointments promptly in their homes, and they were encouraged to contact the service between appointments if needed. Some patients highlighted that telephone calls were answered quickly, and reception staff were friendly and supportive.
Patients who attended memory clinic group sessions spoke positively about these, saying they felt understood and benefited from meeting others with similar experiences. The older people outreach support team was particularly valued, with one patient stating they could not have coped without the help provided.
Most patients reported receiving support from the same staff member, which helped maintain consistency. These patients said that staff were responsive and had a good understanding of their needs.
Two carers told us that psychiatrists could be accessed quickly through the service team to support their relative. One carer highlighted that useful information was available on the service’s website. All staff were described as respectful and polite. One carer said, a nurse attended home appointments punctually and their relative received a good standard of care.