- SERVICE PROVIDER
Lincolnshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
This is an organisation that runs the health and social care services we inspect
Assessment report published 27 May 2026
Contents
Ratings - Acute wards for adults of working age and psychiatric intensive care units
Our view of the service
We assessed Lincolnshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, assessment service group (ASG): Acute wards for adults of working age and psychiatric intensive care units from 21 to 22 April 2026. We assessed all 33 quality statements.
We assessed this service to review the progress made against the warning notice that wwas served on the provider following the inspection in June 2025. We rated the service as good. The service had made improvements and is no longer in breach of regulations 11 (Consent), 12 (Safety), and 17 (Governance).
We visited the following wards as part of the assessment:
Ellis and Castle wards within The Peter Hodgkinson Centre at Lincoln County Hospital. These are adult inpatient wards which helped people on their recovery journey. Ellis is a 20-bed male ward and Castle is a 20-bed female ward.
Ash Villa Sleaford, 15-bed acute treatment ward for females.
Havenside, a new 19 bed mixed sex unit at Norton Lea, in Boston. This unit has replaced Ward 12 at Pilgrim Hospital.
The Hartsholme Centre in Lincoln, a 10 bedded all male psychiatric intensive care service (PICU) for people with acute mental health difficulties.
Staff now considered, assessed, and recorded patient’s consent to care and treatment. Staff complied with the Mental Health Act Code of Practice when restraint was used and when rapid tranquilisation was administered. The provider’s governance processed and oversight of rapid tranquilisation administration and restrain had now improved.
Leaders embedded a culture of openness and collaboration. Patients were protected from bullying, harassment, avoidable harm, neglect, abuse, and discrimination. Their liberty and best interests were protected in line with legislation.
Staff placed patients at the centre of their care. Patients were treated with kindness, empathy, and compassion. Staff made effort to take patients’ wishes into account and respected their choices to achieve the best possible outcomes for them including supporting people to live as independently as possible. Patients were actively involved in planning care that met their needs. Care, support and treatment were accessible, including physical access. People could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.
Leaders proactively supported staff and collaborated with partners to deliver care that was safe, compassionate, and integrated. Leaders were focused on implementing improvements. However, governance and management systems to ensure that information about risks, performance and outcomes were still not fully effective. As a result, we found gaps in how patients’ privacy was protected including personalisation of care plans. Gaps remained in mandatory training compliance across key areas.
Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Compliance Summary
Whilst staff demonstrated good awareness of the Mental Health Act (MHA), the level of compliance with MHA training was lower than expected. MHA training compliance was lower than other role essential training modules, with Level 1 at 66.1% and Level 2 at 72.6%. This level of compliance meant that a significant proportion of staff had not completed the statutory MHA training. This was required to ensure the understanding of legal frameworks, detention processes, and patient rights as set out in the Mental Health Act 1983 Code of Practice and Care Quality Commission expectations for safe staffing.
Leaders outlined that they had implemented a targeted improvement programme to strengthen MHA training compliance. This was supported by governance oversight, senior leadership scrutiny, and monitoring through established quality assurance structures. While appropriate governance arrangements and oversight mechanisms were in place, current completion rates meant that measures have not yet fully translated into consistent improvement in training uptake.
However, staff upheld patients’ rights under the Mental Health Act 1983. They completed detention paperwork accurately, ensuring informal patients were not subject to unnecessary restrictions, and explained patients’ rights clearly.
Staff compliance with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) training was good and in accordance with trust policy and targets. Policies and procedures reflected current guidance, and patients were able to access independent advocacy.
Following issues identified at the previous inspection, leaders had implemented changes aimed at improving practice, including strengthened governance around rapid tranquilisation (RT), improved awareness of Mental Health Act legal requirements, and enhanced monitoring systems.
People's experience of this service
During our assessment, we spoke with 20 patients. We reviewed patient’s survey and feedback data, feedback from partner organisations, patients’ meeting minutes and feedback gathered during the inspection.
Patients felt safe on the wards.; However, some told us they felt intimidated by the behaviour of other patients. Patients also told us that staff responded well to manage incidents when they occurred. However, some patients reported periods of heightened distress on the ward, particularly during busy times. Patients noted the environment was clean and hygienic.
Patients received care and treatment and could access their care records. Most patients told us staff explained treatment in a way they could understand. We saw evidence of care planning and multidisciplinary input, although this was not always consistently reflected in patient care records.
Staff treated patients with respect and dignity. Staff spoke to patients in a calm and compassionate manner and supported them with daily needs. Patients felt many staff were kind, approachable, and supportive, particularly during periods of distress. However, some patients reported that staff availability for emotional support varied.
Patients praised the access to therapeutic activities. Most patients described positive experiences of ward activities and one-to-one support. Patients told us and we saw systems were in place to gather feedback and patients were aware of how to raise concerns. Most patients were confident that issues would be addressed