Lincolnshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring- this means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity, and respect.
At our last assessment we rated caring as good. At this assessment, the rating has remained good. Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness. They respected patients’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of patients and supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment, or condition. Staff involved patients in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.
 

This service scored 70 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service treated people with kindness, empathy, and compassion. Staff treated colleagues from other organizations with kindness and respect. However, staff did not always fully protect people's privacy and dignity.
While staff demonstrated caring and compassionate behaviour towards patients, concerns regarding confidentiality, professional boundaries, and consistency of staff conduct meant there was an increased risk that the service did not consistently ensure dignity, respect, and professionalism were maintained.
We identified concerns regarding confidentiality and privacy. ‘Patient Status at a Glance’ (PSAG) boards on Ellis and Castle Ward were visible through ward windows, which created a risk that confidential patient information could be seen by unauthorised individuals or other patients. This meant that confidentiality was not consistently maintained in all areas of the service. We raised this during the inspection and staff took immediate action.
We received concerns from staff and patients regarding staff conduct on Ellis and Castle Wards. On these wards, concerns were raised about some staff demonstrating blurred professional boundaries during interactions with patients, including behaviour perceived as overly familiar and favouritism. This contributed to perceptions of inconsistency and unfairness among staff and patients. We raised this at the time of the inspection and leaders took immediate action to address our concerns.
During observations on Castle ward, we noted an instance of communication between staff and a patient that could be perceived as undermining a medical colleague in relation to a patient’s wound. This highlighted a risk to maintaining respectful multidisciplinary working relationships and a positive professional culture.
However, we observed staff interactions with patients that were respectful, discreet, and responsive. Staff demonstrated kindness and provided support, emotional reassurance, and practical advice when patients required it.
Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment, and conditions. Staff explained information in a way patients could understand and supported involvement in decisions about their care where possible.
Staff directed patients to other services when appropriate and supported access to those services when required, helping to promote continuity of care.
Most patients told us staff treated them well and feedback from patients was positive regarding day-to-day interactions with staff.
Staff felt able to raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory, or abusive behaviour or attitudes toward s patients without fear of consequences.
 

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.
Staff made reasonable adjustments to support patients with disabilities, including supporting access to the ward environment and adapting care to meet individual communication needs. Staff recognised patients’ diverse needs and adjusted their approach where required.
Staff ensured patients were able to access information about their care and treatment, local services, their rights, and how to make a complaint. Managers ensured staff and patients had access to interpreting services and sign language support when needed. For example, staff developed a section 17 leave form that was translated into the patient’s first language along with communication cards to support them in expressing their needs when self-harming. In addition, the patient’s named nurse translated all their care plans into their first language. This supported effective communication with patients whose first language was not English or who required additional communication assistance.
Staff made efforts to meet patients’ dietary needs, offering a choice of food that reflected cultural, religious, and personal preferences, as well as medical needs such as allergies and intolerances.
Patients were supported to access spiritual and religious support in line with their individual preferences, helping to promote holistic and person-centred care. Each ward had a multifaith room that patients could use.
Staff also supported individual preferences relating to the ward environment. For example, patients could choose whether to open or close bedroom door observation windows when it was safe to do so, supporting privacy, comfort, and autonomy.
 

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so they knew their rights and had control over their own care, treatment, and wellbeing.
Staff supported patients, including those detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, to have as much choice and control as possible over their care and treatment within the restrictions of the ward environment.
Staff involved patients in decisions about their care and treatment wherever possible and supported them to express their preferences. Staff explained patients’ rights in a way they could understand and checked their understanding regularly, recognising that this could fluctuate due to mental health needs.
Staff recognised patients’ social needs and supported them to maintain contact with family, friends, and their wider support networks. Patients could access visits, phone calls, and leave arrangements, such as Section 17 leave, where appropriate. Staff ensured any restrictions were proportionate, clearly justified and based on individual risk assessments.
Staff supported patients to engage in meaningful activities and offered choices that reflected individual preferences. Staff adapted activities and options to meet patients’ needs and levels of engagement, supporting recovery and wellbeing.
Staff supported patients to attend appointments and access external services where required, helping to maintain continuity of care and promote independence.
Staff promoted independence by encouraging patients to develop daily living skills and to maintain as much control as possible over their own routines. Activities supporting independence included cooking sessions, gym sessions, and gardening. Patients could make choices about how they structured their day, including whether to engage in activities or spend time independently, where it was safe to do so.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views, and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs at the moment and acted to minimize any discomfort, concern, or distress.
Staff ensured patients had access to nurse call systems and could make verbal requests for support. Patients used call bells or approached staff directly, and staff responded in a timely manner to provide support and reassurance.
Staff identified and managed risks to patients, including changes in mental health presentation or behaviours that could pose a risk to themselves or others. Staff adjusted care and observation levels in response to changing needs.
Staff used de-escalation techniques effectively when patients became distressed or agitated. Staff prioritised therapeutic engagement to understand the underlying causes of distress and reduce escalation. Staff spoke confidently about their skills in this area. One staff member said, “As a rule we are a ward that does not restrain so often as we are good at de-escalating. We are good at getting to the bottom of what the issue is.”
Most patients reported that staff responded when they needed support and were available to help manage distress. We saw staff responding promptly to patients' needs during our inspection visit, for example when patients were distressed or when a patient experienced a seizure.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centered care.
Leaders supported staff through a culture that promoted inclusivity, open communication, and a focus on maintaining a healthy working environment. Staff felt supported in their roles and described being able to access appropriate help when needed. One staff said, “Mangers are supportive and visible, I feel valued, it is a good place to work.”
Staff had access to a range of wellbeing resources, including occupational health services, an employee assistance programme, and wellbeing workshops. These services provided both proactive and reactive support for staff experiencing work-related or personal stress.
Staff had regular breaks and appropriate scheduling arrangements, which supported rest and recovery during shifts. The service provided access to suitable rest areas, supporting staff wellbeing during the working day.
In addition, the provider used “#feelgood “staff initiative. Staff used a private social media page to recognise a colleague for a team effort, personal accomplishment, celebrating something or welcoming new team members. Feedback on this initiative has been very positive.

Leaders promoted a culture where wellbeing was discussed openly within teams. Staff had opportunities to provide feedback on their working experience and suggest improvements to service delivery and team functioning. Leaders considered this feedback and responded where appropriate.
Most staff reported that they received support when they were struggling at work, which helped them to maintain their ability to deliver safe and person-centred care. The provider recognised the importance of supporting a diverse workforce and ensured access to wellbeing support that reflected different individual needs.