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 staff involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. This key question has been rated good.

This service scored 80 (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 3. The evidence showed a good standard of care.

People and their families consistently described staff as caring, compassionate, and respectful. Feedback demonstrated that people felt valued, listened to, and supported by staff who took the time to understand them as individuals. One person told us, “All the staff are great, and they care for me very well. My mum and dad are happy too, and they know that the staff really care about me.”

Staff developed therapeutic relationships with people, based on trust, empathy, and a good understanding of their individual needs. Staff demonstrated knowledge of people’s communication preferences, sensory needs, personal histories, and the reasonable adjustments required to support effective engagement. Throughout our assessment, staff communicated in a calm, respectful, and person-centred manner, adapting their approach to meet individual needs, which ensured people felt comfortable, understood, and involved.

People were encouraged to express their views, wishes, and preferences, and staff actively listened and responded appropriately. Staff provided reassurance and emotional support when needed and worked in partnership with people to promote their wellbeing, independence, and quality of life. Interactions we observed were warm, respectful, and focused on building confidence and meaningful relationships.

Families and carers also spoke positively about the support provided by staff. One relative told us, “You really can tell the staff genuinely care. Nothing is ever too much trouble, and the support my son receives has made a real difference to his life.”

Staff consistently respected people’s privacy, dignity, and human rights. They supported people in a way that recognised their individuality and promoted choice, inclusion, and equality. The service had a strong culture of kindness, respect, and compassion, which was reflected in the feedback we received and, in the interactions, we observed throughout our visit.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard of care.

Staff delivered person-centred care that reflected each individual’s strengths, needs, preferences, and personal goals. People told us they felt recognised as individuals and that staff took the time to understand what was important to them. One person told us, “The staff treat our son with respect and an individual. He is not seen as just a number.”

Care and support plans were personalised and reflected people’s unique circumstances, including their communication needs, sensory preferences, cultural background, religious beliefs, social history, and protected characteristics. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the importance of delivering care that was tailored to the individual and took account of factors that could affect a person’s wellbeing, engagement, and outcomes.

Communication needs were clearly identified and recorded, and information was provided in accessible formats to support understanding. Staff adapted their communication styles to meet individual needs and used a range of tools and resources to support meaningful engagement. We saw evidence of personalised profiles and documents within care records, which provided detailed information about people’s preferences, communication methods, interests, strengths, sensory needs, and potential triggers. These resources helped staff develop a consistent understanding of each person and deliver highly individualised support.

Staff demonstrated an awareness of the diverse needs of people using the service and actively supported individuals to maintain their cultural, spiritual, and religious identities. Care planning considered these needs, and where appropriate, staff facilitated access to faith leaders, community groups, advocacy services, and other sources of support that were important to the person.

Staff understood the diversity of the people they supported, and recognised the importance of promoting equality, inclusion, and respect. Staff considered people’s individual preferences and lifestyle choices when planning care and support, ensuring interventions were appropriate and responsive to their needs. This person-centred approach helped people feel valued, respected, and supported to achieve outcomes that were meaningful to them.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard of care.

Staff supported people to have choice and control over their care, treatment, and daily lives wherever possible. People were encouraged to make informed decisions about their support, and staff took account of each person’s communication needs, capacity, legal status, preferences, and individual circumstances.

Staff promoted independence by supporting people to develop confidence, daily living skills, and community participation. Care and support were tailored to people’s strengths, interests, abilities, and personal goals. Staff balanced positive risk-taking with appropriate safeguards, enabling people to build independence while maintaining their safety and wellbeing.

People were supported to maintain important relationships with family, friends, carers, and their wider communities. Staff actively encouraged social visits, telephone contact, and video calls where this was important to the person.

The learning disability recovery college provided a structured approach to ensuring the voices and experiences of people with lived experience informed service development and improvement. The team included an accessible information lead and experts by experience, whose roles were specifically designed to represent the views of people with a learning disability and support the ongoing development of the learning disability service.

These roles enabled people with lived experience, including those who had previously accessed services, to make meaningful contributions to service design and delivery. They provided valuable insight into the experiences of people using the service, helping to inform decision-making, challenge existing practices where appropriate, and support the planning and implementation of service improvements. This approach strengthened co-production and ensured that the views of people with lived experience were embedded within the development of the service.

Staff supported people’s physical health needs alongside their mental health and wellbeing. Where needed, people were provided with adaptive equipment, such as mobility aids, to promote independence and safe access to activities. Accessible facilities were available to support people to maintain dignity, privacy, and independence in daily living.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard of care.

Staff responded promptly and effectively when people required support, including when they became distressed, anxious, or experienced a change in their presentation. Staff were observant and demonstrated a good understanding of people’s individual communication styles, sensory needs, triggers, and early warning signs. This enabled them to identify changes quickly and provide timely support to maintain people’s wellbeing and reduce potential incidents or risks.

People using the service felt able to approach staff when they needed help or had concerns. Staff listened to people, responded sensitively, and adapted their approach to meet individual needs. We observed staff engaging with people in a calm, respectful, and reassuring way, offering practical and emotional support when required.

Speech and language therapists completed assessments to understand each person’s expressive and receptive communication skills, social communication needs, and situational understanding. Assessment outcomes were shared with the multidisciplinary team and used to inform care planning, reasonable adjustments, and communication support. Information was provided in accessible formats wherever possible.

Staff also used social stories and preparation tools to support people before appointments, procedures, or new experiences. For example, people were supported to understand what to expect when attending external health appointments, such as dental appointments, scans, or hospital visits. This helped reduce anxiety, improve understanding, and enabled people to develop coping strategies in advance.

People using trust services had access to independent advocacy support including independent mental health advocates where they were eligible. Community patients could access advocacy through self-referral or with support from staff. Staff were responsible for signposting people to advocacy services and supporting referrals where needed. Where statutory advocacy was required, such as IMHA or IMCA support, clinicians completed referrals in line with the M[CW1]ental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act requirements.

Advocacy services could be contacted by telephone or email, and separate referrals were completed where more than one type of advocacy support was required. The service was commissioned by Lincolnshire County Council, who could provide further information about the advocacy contract if required.

Staff demonstrated a proactive approach to meeting people’s needs. They developed positive therapeutic relationships, which helped them anticipate when people may need additional support. When people showed signs of distress or deterioration in their mental wellbeing, staff used personalised de-escalation techniques and least restrictive approaches to reduce the likelihood of escalation.

Where urgent concerns were identified, staff followed clear escalation processes and sought support from the wider multidisciplinary team or emergency services where required. This helped ensure people received timely, safe, and appropriate care.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an outstanding standard of care.

Leaders prioritised staff wellbeing and ensured staff had access to a range of support to help them carry out their roles safely and effectively. Staff described leaders as visible, approachable, and responsive, and told us they felt supported, valued, and able to speak openly. One staff member said, “Management are incredibly supportive and they have done so much for me.”

Service leaders promoted a positive and supportive team culture. Managers encouraged staff to take regular breaks, seek support when needed, and raise concerns or feedback without fear of reproach. Staff felt listened to and respected by their colleagues and the leadership team. This helped create an environment where staff felt confident, motivated, and able to deliver compassionate, person-centred care for people with learning disabilities and autistic people.

Leaders recognised and celebrated staff contributions across the multidisciplinary team. This included initiatives such as a monthly colleague appreciation programme, where staff could anonymously nominate colleagues who had gone above and beyond in their role or demonstrated the organisation’s values. These initiatives helped promote morale, teamwork, and a shared commitment to high-quality care.

The trust had a range of wellbeing support available for staff, with associated policies available if required. Staff wellbeing and recognition were promoted through both formal and informal initiatives across the trust.

The “#Feelgood Friday” initiative was used to recognise colleagues for team contributions, personal achievements, welcoming new staff and demonstrating positive values. Nominations were shared through the private LPFT Facebook page, with prize draws held regularly. The initiative was valued by staff and helped promote morale, appreciation and a positive team culture.

Staff achievements were also recognised through the team LPFT values awards. examples included recognition of the enhanced support and liaison service for advocacy and compassionate care, the expert by experience team for innovation and improvement, and the learning disability east hub, which won the chair’s award for continued collaboration, innovation and service improvement despite recruitment challenges.

Within the autism diagnostic service, a wellbeing champion supported regular communication, shared updates through newsletters and maintained wellbeing information within the office. Feedback and achievements were also shared and celebrated through newsletters and business meetings.

Leaders made reasonable adjustments to support staff with individual needs, including family, caring, health, cultural, and religious commitments. Flexible support was considered where possible to help staff maintain a positive work-life balance and remain well at work.

Staff were supported to develop within their roles through supervision, appraisal, performance review, goal setting, and career development discussions. Leaders encouraged staff to identify learning needs and development opportunities. This empowered staff to feel enabled, confident, and competent in their roles.