Lincolnshire Partnership 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

Responsive - 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.

Leaders managed the ward well and allocated resources efficiently when required. Patients did not have to stay in the unit when they were well enough to leave. The design, layout, and furnishings of the ward supported patients’ treatment, privacy and dignity. Staff supported patients with activities outside the service including community inclusion, building social skills 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.

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.

Description: 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.

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.

Staff responded promptly to changes in patients’ needs, ensuring that care and treatment plans were kept current and effective. Plans addressed physical and mental health needs, as well as emotional and social factors, and incorporated adjustments for protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

Patients were actively involved in their care planning. The care plans we reviewed were detailed, consistent, and personalised to each individual’s circumstances, preferences, and needs. Staff worked collaboratively with patients, families, and external agencies to ensure a person‑centred approach to care.

Patients received clear and accurate information about their diagnosis and treatment options, including potential benefits and risks. Where appropriate, staff encouraged the involvement of families or carers. Shared decision‑making was embedded in practice, supporting patient autonomy and ensuring care aligned with each person’s needs and wishes. One patient told us, “I am treated as an individual, and my care is personal to me.”

The service also promoted staff leadership in specific areas of care, including patient liaison roles. Patient leads worked closely with individuals throughout their care pathway, supporting communication, representation, and administrative tasks to enhance the patient experience. Staff emphasised the importance of getting to know each patient directly and building relationships based on real‑time interaction on the unit.

Description: 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.

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 received relevant information about patients prior to admission; however, they were clear that this information was not used to form assumptions or create a biased view of the individual. Nurses completed comprehensive pre‑admission assessments and reviewed these regularly to ensure they remained accurate and up to date.

Patients were provided with clear, accurate, and current information about their diagnosis and treatment options, including associated benefits and risks. Where appropriate, staff encouraged the involvement of families or carers. Shared decision‑making was embedded in practice, supporting patient autonomy and ensuring their needs, wishes, and rights were fully considered.

All members of the multidisciplinary team, including the unit’s forensic social worker, contributed effectively to discharge planning. Plans were centred on the patient’s best interests while also considering potential risks within the community. Staff actively promoted positive risk‑taking and supported patients to move towards living safely in the community. Discharge plans included appropriate safeguards and clearly outlined community support arrangements to ensure patients could access help if needed following discharge.

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

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.

The service had robust policies and procedures in place to ensure that patient information was managed confidentially and securely, in line with general data protection regulation (GDPR) requirements. Staff routinely identified, documented, and reviewed patients’ communication needs, making reasonable adjustments in accordance with the accessible information standard.

The provider’s website included an assistive technology toolbar, allowing users to personalise their online experience by adjusting font size, colour contrast, and translating content into a range of languages.

Staff provided patients with accurate and up‑to‑date information about their care and treatment in formats appropriate for their needs and those of their families. Systems were in place to adapt information into accessible formats, such as easy‑read materials or translations, to support individual communication requirements. Interpreter services were used where required to ensure clarity and understanding. One patient told us, “All you have to do is ask staff for information, and they get it for you and explain things if you’re not quite sure.” Patients, families, and carers were kept informed of care and treatment progress while confidentiality and privacy were maintained. Information on how to raise concerns or make a complaint was clearly displayed throughout the environment, and staff supported patients to understand their rights.

Where appropriate, families and carers were involved in discussions about care and treatment. Processes were in place to ensure communication was timely, accurate, and effective.

Description: 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.

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.

Staff supported patients, and families to provide feedback or raise concerns. Patients knew how to complain, and the service displayed clear information on how to access support, including advocacy and interpreter services, and external organisations, for example, the patient advice and liaison service (PALS). One patient told us, “Staff have helped when I was concerned about something, they told me what was happening, and what had been done.”

In the three months prior to our assessment, the service received 0 formal complaints or compliments. The service does gather information from the “mini every voice meeting”. This process provided an important platform for patients and staff to raise concerns, share positive feedback, and ensure their views were heard at all levels of the trust. Issues intended for discussion at the mini every voice meeting would first be explored within the wards “every voice meeting”, offering an opportunity for staff and patients to work together to identify solutions in a collaborative and co‑produced manner.

Where matters could not be resolved within the ward‑level meeting, they were escalated to the “every voice steering group” by the designated patient partner. This ensured that unresolved issues received appropriate oversight, further discussion, and follow‑up actions at a senior level. The structured escalation pathway promoted transparency, strengthened patient involvement, and supported continuous improvement across the service.

Patients were encouraged to share their opinions and feedback during community meetings. We reviewed the community meeting minutes, and found feedback and concerns had been clearly recorded, with any concerns raised being responded to promptly with clear actions, and feedback provided to those involved.

The service promoted a culture of involvement by encouraging and supporting patients to take on roles as patient safety leads, enabling them to contribute their perspectives on all aspects of safety. Patients were actively involved in safety discussions, and their views were listened to and acted upon.

One patient told us “Staff encourage you to feedback and raise concerns if you have any. They always let you know what’s happening and what’s been done.”

The service viewed feedback as a valuable tool for learning and improvement. Staff received regular updates on complaints and their outcomes, and learning from these was used to identify areas for development and implement positive changes where required.

By actively involving people in the feedback process and clearly communicating the actions taken, the service promoted transparency and strengthened trust. This approach helped ensure that patients and visitors felt valued, listened to, respected, and included. Action plans were implemented from information received from patients’ audits and feedback provided through a patient safety meeting, community meetings and ‘you said, we did’ feedback.

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

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 and leaders worked effectively with external organisations to improve access to services and support seamless transitions between different parts of the care pathway. The team collaborated closely with commissioners to coordinate assessment, treatment, and ongoing support, ensuring that care was tailored to each patient’s individual needs and delivered at the right time.

Medical cover was available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Medical staff responded promptly to emergencies regardless of the time of day or night. The team consultant told us they provided additional reassurance to staff by offering telephone advice and support during night shifts and whenever they were off‑site. When patients required specialist medical intervention beyond what could be provided on the unit, staff arranged timely transfers to the local acute hospital to ensure their needs were met without delay.

Staff and leaders ensured patients could access care and support in ways that aligned with their personal circumstances, preferences, and requirements. Robust assessment processes were in place to identify potential barriers to care and remove them early, particularly for people with complex needs, enduring mental illness, or those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. This approach helped ensure equity of access and supported the delivery of safe, person‑centred care.

The service maintained strong, proactive links with aftercare providers, including crisis teams, assertive transitions services, and continuing care teams. Discharge planning was clinically appropriate, collaborative, and coordinated with external partners to ensure continuity of care. Staff focused on supporting safe, sustainable transitions, with clear arrangements in place for follow‑up, community support, and risk management. This helped promote positive outcomes and supported patients in maintaining their recovery once they left the service.

Description: 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.

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 consistently promoted equality, diversity, and human rights in their daily practice and worked in line with all relevant legislation. The team made reasonable adjustments to meet each person’s social, cultural, and religious needs. This included working with communication support services, adapting information into accessible formats, and ensuring individuals received care in ways that respected their identity and personal circumstances.

The service had robust equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) policies in place, which guided staff and ensured compliance with statutory requirements. These policies were designed to prevent discrimination, minimise disadvantage for individuals with protected characteristics, and promote fairness across all aspects of care. They also supported equitable access to treatment, information, and facilities throughout the service.

Staff actively sought feedback from people who might be at higher risk of experiencing inequalities or poorer outcomes. This feedback was used to inform personalised care planning and improve service delivery. Patients were encouraged and supported to express their views, helping create a culture where individuals felt heard, respected, and confident that their feedback contributed to meaningful change.

The service was engaged in the patient and carer race equality framework (PCREF), a national initiative aimed at improving mental health outcomes for racialised and ethnically diverse communities. Through PCREF, the service worked to strengthen understanding across the workforce, co‑produce improvement plans with racialised patients and carers and embedded anti‑racist practices across all areas of the service. This approach supported the development of more inclusive, culturally responsive, and equitable mental health care.

Description: 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.

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 patients and their families to plan for the future and make informed decisions about ongoing care and support. Families were actively involved in discussions, with staff ensuring that decisions reflected the patient’s wishes, needs, and personal preferences. This inclusive approach enabled patients and those important to them to feel engaged, prepared, and fully informed throughout their care journey.

Staff worked collaboratively with patients to develop personalised care plans that accurately captured their views, goals, and individual requirements. These plans were dynamic and were reviewed regularly to ensure they remained relevant and responsive to any changes in health, circumstances, or risk. Treatment, transition, and discharge plans were also updated routinely, ensuring that patients received coordinated, continuous support as their needs evolved.

For individuals with complex needs, staff worked closely with external agencies and partner organisations to ensure care planning was consistent, well‑coordinated, and delivered seamlessly across different settings. This collaborative approach supported safe and effective transitions, reduced the risk of gaps in care, and helped ensure that patients received the right level of support at each stage of their pathway. One patient told us, “The staff and doctors have supported me for what happens next, I’m actually just waiting for accommodation and feel much better.”