Northamptonshire Healthcare 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. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

Staff managed beds well. A bed was available when a patient needed one. The design, layout, and furnishings of the ward supported patients’ treatment, privacy and dignity. Staff supported patients with activities outside the service, such as work, education and family relationships. The service met the needs of all patients – including those with a protected characteristic. Staff helped patients with communication, advocacy and cultural and spiritual support. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the result.

The service was responsive to the needs of people using it. Staff managed the allocation of respite beds effectively, ensuring a bed was available when required. Patients were admitted and discharged according to their planned respite allocation and health needs. Where a patient’s condition required hospital care, staff facilitated transfer promptly.

Patients were discharged back to homes into the care of their parents or carers, and they remained registered with their GPs while receiving care in the respite service. The service operated on a rotation basis for 36 individuals, with 6 patients onsite during the inspection. Each person had an annual package of care, typically 84 or 42 hours, equating to 365 nights shared across the group. The scheduling system was flexible and responsive to requests, supporting families’ needs.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We make sure people are at the centre of their care and treatment choices and we decide, in partnership with them, how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs.

Quality Statement Score: 3

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care was centred on the needs and wishes of patients and their families. Staff worked with carers to ensure individual preferences were respected and activities personalised. Staff used communication aids, gestures and simplified language to engage patients who could not express themselves verbally, ensuring care planning was inclusive.

Care was clearly tailored to the individual, with care plans capturing routines, communication preferences, health conditions and cultural needs. Staff demonstrated an awareness that each person was unique and shaped their approach accordingly. For example, daily routines were adjusted to reflect individual sleep patterns, favourite activities and preferred communication styles.

Families consistently told us that care was designed around their relatives’ individual needs. One parent said, “It takes a lot to put trust in other people, but I am more than confident she is cared for”. Another relative commented, “staff provided person centred and tailored care to my daughter. They always sent her home with report sheet.”

Staff empowered people to make decisions about their care wherever possible. For those with communication difficulties, staff used non-verbal cues, visual prompts and input from carers to ensure their voices were heard. People were supported to express choices around meals, activities and daily routines, and staff respected these preferences. Families confirmed that they were engaged in discussions about care and changes to treatment, ensuring decisions reflected both the person’s current needs and their longer-term wishes.

We understand the diverse health and care needs of people and our local communities, so care is joined-up, flexible and supports choice and continuity.

Quality Statement Score: 3

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.

The provider ensured care was flexible and responsive to changing needs. Patients accessed respite on a rotation basis, with 36 families sharing 365 nights annually. The process for accessing the service had been refined to ensure fairness, with CHC funding and a structured referral and waiting list system in place.

Families described continuity of staff as a strength, with many carers emphasising the benefit of long-standing staff who knew patients well. One parent told us, “There are lots of regular staff, long term staff and no high turnover.” Staff prioritised maintaining strong links with families and carers. Families confirmed that communication was regular and open, and that staff made sure they were kept informed about their relatives’ wellbeing. One parent said, “Worries when away from son but feels more than confident he is provided with excellent care. Communication is great, “The support for carers is outstanding.”

Staff collaborated effectively with community teams and external professionals, including specialist nurses, to manage complex health needs such as percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding, blended diets, and mobility risks. Families told us this gave them confidence their relatives were safe.

Access to respite beds was managed through an equitable allocation system, ensuring fair distribution of available nights across all individuals who use the service (365 nights shared among 36 people). Stays typically ranged from 1 to 14 days, with flexibility offered by managers to accommodate individual and family needs wherever possible. While some carers expressed a wish for increased capacity to allow for more frequent stays, feedback overall reflected satisfaction with the fairness and transparency of the current allocation process.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of the people it supported and worked flexibly to ensure care was joined-up, person-centred and continuous. Staff ensured that care planning was holistic and that individual preferences were respected, so people received care that reflected their wider lives as well as their immediate health needs.

Although the service was respite-based and did not routinely provide education or work opportunities on site, staff encouraged people to continue with day centre placements or community-based activities where appropriate. This helped ensure that people experienced continuity in their routines and maintained opportunities for personal development and social interaction.

We provide appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that we tailor to individual needs.

Quality Statement Score: 3

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.

Families told us they were kept informed through pre-check-in calls, detailed handovers, and timely updates. Carers valued this, with one relative saying, “Communication is outstanding, I feel good knowing he is safe.”

The service used written reports, emails, and phone calls to update families, alongside patient activity photos to share progress. A complaints poster and family questionnaires were clearly displayed, and feedback was routinely shared in staff meetings.

However, feedback submitted by 4 families in June 2025 showed that 1 carer noted that they would welcome more detailed updates on their relative’s progress during respite stays.The service had already begun to address this by increasing email and phone communication and providing written reports on discharge.

The service provided appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats tailored to people’s individual needs. Staff ensured families, carers and commissioners were regularly updated about each person’s progress, both during their stay and when preparing for discharge. Families told us they valued the open and consistent communication. One parent said, “Handovers are detailed, and I feel good knowing he is safe.”

Staff complied with the Accessible Information Standard. Information about people’s rights, treatments, and how to raise a concern was available in easy-read formats for those with a learning disability.

Information governance systems were in place, and staff-maintained confidentiality in line with policy. Paper and electronic records were reconciled regularly to ensure information was accurate and secure. Families told us they were confident that personal information was kept safe and shared appropriately.

The service also made statutory notifications to external bodies as required and maintained clear records of incidents, safeguarding concerns and other notifiable events. Staff confirmed they were confident in these processes and that they understood the importance of timely reporting.

We make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. We involve them in decisions about their care and tell them what’s changed as a result.

Quality Statement Score: 3

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.

Families consistently reported that staff and managers listened to their concerns and acted promptly. Complaints were rare, and when raised, were resolved through discussion and followed up at team meetings. This was resolved locally through discussion and clear communication with the family. No complaints had been received in the last 3 months. Feedback from the most recent carers’ survey included 1 carer noting that more regular updates about a child’s care would be appreciated.

Staff confirmed they were confident in handling complaints and had received training. They described an open, supportive culture where concerns could be raised without fear of discrimination. Complaints were escalated appropriately, apologies offered where necessary, and lessons learned shared in team and governance meetings to improve practice across the service. This reflects a transparent approach to learning and continuous improvement.

The service made it easy for people and families to share feedback, raise concerns and make complaints about care and treatment. Information about how to complain was available in accessible formats, including easy-read leaflets, and families told us they knew who to approach if they had any concerns. Carers described the ward manager as approachable and supportive. One family member said, “the ward manager is our saviour, she respects staff and staff respect her.”

We make sure that everyone can access the care, support and treatment they need when they need it.

Quality Statement Score: 3

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.

Access to the service required Continuing Healthcare (CHC) funding, and allocation of nights was based on a structured rotation system to ensure fairness. The service ensured that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff made reasonable adjustments to meet the needs of people with mobility issues. The building is adaptive to wheelchair users. Shower chairs and specialist equipment were provided to ensure people could move safely and with dignity during their stay. Families told us they valued these adjustments. One relative said, “The whole service is completely person centred and tailored to my son’s needs.”

There was adequate clinical cover day and night, with staff able to access out of hour doctors quickly in an emergency. The unit was also within a short distance of the local acute hospital, ensuring rapid transfer if urgent medical care was required. Families confirmed they felt reassured knowing support was always available.

Staff planned discharges carefully and worked closely with families and commissioners to ensure continuity of support, and people remained registered with their GPs while receiving respite care.

Staff said admissions and discharges were managed effectively, and relatives confirmed that stays were planned well in advance, reducing uncertainty.

We actively seek out and listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. We tailor the care, support and treatment in response to this.

Quality Statement Score: 3

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.

Families consistently described staff as respectful, caring, and professional. Equality and diversity needs were recognised, with staff adapting communication and mobility support, and catering to individual health requirements.

Survey results confirmed very high satisfaction levels, with carers scoring the service 99–100% in most domains between February and July 2025. Families described the service as “safe, caring, and person centred” and said it had a transformative effect on their relatives’ confidence and wellbeing.

The service actively sought out and listened to the views of people most at risk of experiencing inequality, and care was tailored to ensure positive and equitable outcomes. Staff promoted a culture in which families felt empowered to share their views, and relatives told us their voices were heard and acted upon.

The provider had undertaken equality impact assessments of its policies and procedures to ensure that people with protected characteristics were not placed at a disadvantage. These reviews were embedded into organisational practice and supported decision-making at service level.

Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights, with compliance rates ranging from 95.45% to 100% during the three-month review period. Staff demonstrated an understanding of the importance of tailoring care. They described how they adapted communication methods, respected cultural and religious practices, and made environmental adjustments to reduce barriers. Families confirmed that these efforts made their relatives feel included and valued.

We support people to plan for important life changes, so they can have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Quality Statement Score: 3

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.

Discharge and transition planning was clear, with patients returning home once respite allocations were completed. Staff worked with carers and community professionals to ensure continuity of care.

Although most patients attended for short stays between 1 to14 days, families said staff prepared them well for transitions. Carers valued that the service helped maintain independence and build confidence.

Care plans were personalised and reflected people’s wishes, feelings and preferences. Staff ensured these were updated regularly and adapted when circumstances changed.

Where decisions about care and treatment needed to be made, such as Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) orders, staff worked closely with families, GPs and other professionals to ensure choices were understood and documented. These discussions were handled with dignity and compassion, and records showed clear evidence of multidisciplinary involvement.