- SERVICE PROVIDER
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
This is an organisation that runs the health and social care services we inspect
Assessment report published 30 September 2026
Contents
Ratings - Acute wards for adults of working age and psychiatric intensive care units
Our view of the service
We assessed the acute wards for adults of working age and psychiatric intensive care unit services between 03 June and 17 July 2026. This assessment found improvements since the last assessment in 2023. At the last inspection, the service was in breach of Regulation 12: Safe care and treatment; we found the provider had taken the necessary action and this breach had been resolved.
We rated the service as outstanding overall. Safe, caring and responsive were rated as good. Effective and well-led were rated as outstanding. The service consistently achieved outcomes that were better than expected and demonstrated a strong commitment to learning, innovation and person-centred care.
The service provided inpatient mental health care across acute wards and psychiatric intensive care services, over 2 hospital sites: St Mary’s Hospital in Kettering and Berrywood Hospital in Northampton. The assessment service group comprised of 8 wards and 103 beds. At St Mary’s Hospital, services included Avocet ward (16-bed male acute admission and recovery ward), Kingfisher ward (10-bed mixed-gender acute treatment and recovery ward), Sandpiper ward (16-bed female acute admission and recovery ward) and Shearwater ward (7-bed female psychiatric intensive care unit). At Berrywood Hospital, services included Bay ward (17-bed female acute ward), Cove ward (17-bed male acute admission and treatment ward), Harbour ward (12-bed mixed-gender acute treatment and recovery ward) and Marina ward (8-bed male psychiatric intensive care unit). During this assessment, we visited Kingfisher ward, Shearwater ward, Bay ward, Harbour ward and Marina ward.
Patients received care from skilled multidisciplinary teams who worked collaboratively to meet their mental and physical health needs. Staff completed comprehensive assessments, developed personalised care plans and delivered a wide range of evidence-based interventions. The service promoted recovery, independence and wellbeing through therapeutic activities, physical healthcare initiatives and strong partnership working with other services and agencies.
There was an exceptional culture of learning, openness and continuous improvement. Staff reported incidents appropriately, leaders ensured learning was shared across the service and patients and families were involved when things went wrong. Staff worked proactively with patients to identify and manage risks through personalised safety plans and a strong commitment to reducing restrictive practice. Governance arrangements were robust, with leaders maintaining effective oversight of quality, safety, performance and patient experience.
Patients and carers were overwhelmingly positive about the care provided. People told us staff were kind, supportive, professional and took time to listen. Staff involved patients in decisions about their care, treatment and discharge planning. Patients had access to a wide range of activities, advocacy services and support to maintain relationships with family and carers. Leaders actively sought feedback and used it to improve the service, including enhancing food choices and developing more meaningful weekend activities.
The service demonstrated innovation in several areas. These included developing a sexual health screening pathway, supporting patients with complex physical health needs to remain within the service, introducing new approaches to managing self-harm risks, and participating in national quality improvement and accreditation programmes. Staff worked closely with health, social care and voluntary sector partners to improve outcomes for patients and support safe and timely discharge planning.
We did not identify any breaches of regulation during this assessment. The service had addressed previous concerns and demonstrated sustained improvements.
Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Compliance Summary
Staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983, the Mental Health Act Code of Practice and the Mental Capacity Act and discharged these well. Staff had easy access to support from the trust’s mental health legislation team and completed regular audits to ensure legal requirements were met. Staff explained patients’ rights in a way they could understand, repeated these as necessary and recorded this appropriately. Patients had access to independent mental health advocacy and were supported to take section 17 leave when authorised.
Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and its guiding principles. Compliance with Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act training was 94%. Staff completed decision-specific capacity assessments, supported patients to make their own decisions wherever possible and made best interest decisions in line with legislation when patients lacked capacity. Records demonstrated that staff applied legal frameworks appropriately and promoted patients’ rights, choice and involvement in decisions about their care and treatment.
People's experience of this service
We spoke with 18 patients across the wards during our inspection. Fifteen of the 18 told us they felt safe on the wards. Three said they felt safe sometimes, dependent upon activity and noise on the wards.
All patients told us they could access fresh air and outside spaces regularly.
All patients confirmed they had free access to food and drinks. One patient said staff reminded them to eat, and they valued this support. Most patients spoke positively about the food, and said the menus were varied and had healthy eating options.
Patients told us staff worked with them and explained things to them, such as their rights and medicines they were prescribed. Patients said they spent meaningful time with their named nurses which gave them an opportunity to express how they felt including their views and experiences of the service. Most patients said discharge planning was discussed as they were getting better.
All patients knew there were regular activities they could participate in if they wanted. Examples of activities were arts and crafts, various board games, table tennis, table football, basketball, use of gym and yoga. One patient said if the Occupational Therapist was off, groups would not always go ahead. One patient said there was a lack of activities over the weekends.
Patients were mostly positive and complementary about the staff. Several patients said staff took time to talk to them and actively listened. Some described staff as being easy to talk to. Words patients used to describe staff included ‘kind’, ‘good’ ‘professional’, ‘supportive’, ‘lovely’ and ‘understanding’. Most patients felt there were enough staff to meet patients’ needs and to make the wards safe. Two patients said there were times when more staff would be helpful, to ensure any extra support or leave could be easily facilitated.
Two patients we spoke with were receiving support from the physiotherapist, which was described as helpful.
We spoke with five carers of people who were using the service. All carers told us how clean the wards were kept. All carers talked about being able to visit, with some flexibility. Where the patients had consented, staff updated carers regularly and they were invited to attend review meetings to discuss care and treatment. All carers we spoke with were positive about staff, referring to them as ‘good’, ‘kind’, ‘professional’, ‘polite’ and ‘warm’.
Two carers told us that there had been occasions when groups, such as cooking had been postponed due to the business of the ward and staff being needed elsewhere.