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. This key question has been rated good

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.

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

People were placed at the centre of their care, treatment, and support. Care plans were person-centred, comprehensive, and reflected individuals’ strengths, needs, preferences, aspirations, and personal circumstances. Staff worked in partnership with people, their families, carers, and external agencies to ensure care was coordinated and tailored to achieve outcomes that were meaningful to the individual. One relative told us, “The support my son receives is personalised to his needs. Staff know him well, listen to him, and involve us in decisions. The care he receives has made a real difference to his wellbeing and independence.”

Staff adopted a holistic and strengths-based approach to care planning, recognising the importance of promoting independence, choice, and quality of life. Care plans reflected people’s physical health, mental health, emotional wellbeing, communication requirements, sensory needs, social circumstances, and future aspirations. Staff regularly reviewed care plans with people and, where appropriate, their families and carers to ensure support remained relevant, responsive, and focused on achieving agreed goals and consistent outcomes.

People were actively involved in developing and reviewing their care and treatment plans. Staff supported individuals to understand their needs, treatment options, and any associated risks, enabling them to make informed decisions about their care. Shared decision-making was embedded within practice, and people were encouraged to identify personal goals that were important to them. These goals included improving independence, developing daily living skills, increasing community participation, accessing education or employment opportunities, building social networks, and improving overall wellbeing.

Assessments were thorough, timely, and person-centred, providing a detailed understanding of people’s needs, strengths, risks, and goals. Staff regularly reviewed assessments to ensure care continued to reflect individuals’ changing circumstances and preferences. Care records demonstrated consideration of equality, diversity, and inclusion, with appropriate adjustments made to meet needs relating to communication, culture, religion, disability, gender, and other protected characteristics.

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

People received coordinated, holistic care that reflected their individual needs, preferences, and long-term goals. Staff demonstrated a strong understanding of the health, social care, communication, sensory, and emotional needs of people with learning disabilities and autistic people. Care was delivered through a collaborative and flexible approach, ensuring support remained responsive to changing needs and circumstances.

Staff worked effectively with multidisciplinary colleagues and external partner organisations, including primary care services, social care teams, local authorities, education providers, housing services, and Integrated Care Boards (ICBs). This collaborative approach supported the delivery of joined-up care and helped people access the services and resources they needed in a timely manner.

Transitions between services were planned and managed effectively to promote continuity of care and minimise disruption for people. Staff worked proactively with external services and partner agencies to ensure relevant information was shared and support arrangements were in place before a transfer of care took place. External professionals were routinely involved in reviews, transition planning, and discharge processes to ensure care remained coordinated and person-centred throughout the individual’s journey.

Where people were moving to a new placement or support provider, staff worked closely with multidisciplinary colleagues to ensure the transition was safe, effective, and tailored to the individual’s needs. This included providing bespoke training, guidance, and support to future care providers to help them understand the person’s communication methods, sensory needs, behavioural support strategies, health requirements, and personal preferences. These arrangements helped ensure continuity of care and promoted positive outcomes following transition.

Assessments were comprehensive and considered people’s current needs, future aspirations, risks, strengths, and support networks. Staff worked in partnership with people, their families, carers, and external agencies to ensure care and support were coordinated, responsive, and focused on achieving outcomes that were meaningful to the individual. This approach promoted continuity, reduced the risk of inconsistent care, and supported people to live healthier, more independent, and fulfilling lives within their communities.

People, families, and carers were provided with clear, accurate, and up-to-date information about care, treatment, and support. Staff ensured information was shared in ways people could understand, taking account of individual communication needs, preferences, levels of understanding, and any reasonable adjustments required. This included the use of easy-read information, visual resources, translated materials, and alternative communication methods where appropriate.

Staff understood the importance of accessible communication for people with learning disabilities and autistic people. Where communication or language barriers were identified, staff accessed interpreter services, advocacy support, or other specialist communication resources to help ensure people could understand information and participate in decisions about their care and treatment.

The service had arrangements in place to support effective communication with families and carers, where people had consented to information being shared. A designated carer lead supported communication with relatives and provided a point of contact for advice, updates, and support. Relatives felt informed and included. One relative said, “Managers and staff are very responsive and always give me the information I’ve asked for and provide updates when needed. They’re always considerate when contacting me, and it’s always at a time that suits me around my work commitments.”

Staff maintained people’s privacy and confidentiality when sharing information. Information was managed securely and in line with organisational policies, information governance requirements, and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Staff routinely discussed, recorded, and reviewed people’s consent to share information with families, carers, and partner agencies. This supported people’s rights and ensured information was shared appropriately and lawfully.

People and their relatives were kept informed about care and treatment progress, changes to support arrangements, and any relevant events. Staff provided information in a timely and person-centred way, while ensuring that confidentiality was maintained. Information about advocacy, raising concerns, and making complaints was available and accessible, and staff supported people to understand their rights and how to use these processes if needed.

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

Staff actively encouraged people, families, and carers to share their views, experiences, and concerns about the service. People were supported to provide feedback in ways that met their individual communication needs, including through accessible information, advocacy support, interpreter services, and direct discussions with staff. Information about how to raise concerns, make a complaint, or access support was clearly available, including details for advocacy services, interpreter support, and the Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS).

People and relatives told us they felt listened to and confident that concerns would be taken seriously. One family member told us, “I have rarely had the need to raise any concerns, but I know how to and I’m always asked to give feedback.”

The service had clear processes in place to respond to complaints and concerns. In the three months prior to our assessment, the service had received one formal complaint from a relative. Records showed this had been managed appropriately, with clear documentation, regular communication with those involved, and evidence that the concern had been resolved satisfactorily. This demonstrated that the service responded openly and took action when issues were raised.

People using the service were encouraged to share their views through regular engagement opportunities, including community meetings, care reviews, and individual discussions with staff. Meeting records showed that people’s feedback, suggestions, and concerns were documented and acted upon. Staff communicated outcomes back to people, supporting a transparent approach and helping people understand how their views had influenced improvements.

The service also supported people to contribute to wider service development through monthly people’s council meetings. The people’s council was based on co-production and provided people, families, and carers with opportunities to influence how services, care, and facilities were developed and improved. The forum helped empower people, reduce barriers to involvement, and promote shared decision-making between people using the service and the leadership team.

Services actively sought feedback from people using services, carers, staff and to support ongoing improvement. The “Your Say, Your Way” project, led by experts by experience, resulted in a co-produced feedback form and a more personalised approach to gathering feedback. People had their preferred method of giving feedback recorded on the providers electronic recording system, such as face-to-face, telephone or email, and feedback was requested using this method at regular intervals.

ESLS received positive feedback people using the service. Feedback highlighted that staff were welcoming, approachable, caring and responsive, and that people felt valued, listened to and included. Examples also showed that adapted assessment approaches and communication tools, such as sensory assessments and emotion communication maps, supported people to engage and express their views.

The trust also renewed its triangle of care star 1 and 2 accreditations for 2026 to 2027, recognising continued commitment to working in partnership with carers and families. This reflected the ongoing work of staff, carers, carer leads and champions, and the experience of Care Team in embedding carer involvement across services.

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

Staff supported people to access care, treatment, and support in a way that reflected their individual needs, preferences, communication styles, and personal circumstances. Comprehensive assessments were used to identify potential barriers to access, including those relating to learning disability, autism, physical health, mobility, communication needs, mental health, sensory needs, social circumstances, and protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

Staff made reasonable adjustments to ensure people could engage with the service and receive care in a way that was accessible and meaningful to them. This included adapting communication approaches, providing accessible information, involving families and carers where appropriate, and using advocacy or interpreter services when required. Where people had mobility or physical health needs, staff ensured the appropriate equipment, aids, or assistive technology were provided to promote independence, safety, and participation in care.

The service worked proactively to reduce barriers to care and improve access for people with complex needs. Staff understood the importance of tailoring support for people with enduring mental health needs, autistic people, and people with learning disabilities who may experience difficulties accessing mainstream services. Care was planned around the person’s needs and circumstances, with staff considering how best to support engagement, reduce anxiety, and promote continuity.

People had access to timely clinical input when required. Medical support and advice were available through appropriate clinical pathways, including urgent or emergency responses where risks or concerns were identified. Where people required a higher level of physical health or emergency medical care, staff followed clear escalation processes and supported timely access to acute hospital services.

Staff worked closely with partner organisations to support equitable access and coordinated care. This included collaboration with GPs, social care teams, local authorities, community mental health services, community forensic services, acute hospitals, integrated care boards, and other specialist providers. These partnerships helped ensure people received the right support at the right time and that care pathways were responsive to individual needs.

The service considered accessibility within its environments and approaches to care delivery. Staff demonstrated awareness of the impact of health inequalities and social disadvantage for people with learning disabilities and autistic people. The service contributed to wider organisational and system-level initiatives, including learning disability and autism forums, steering groups, and disability networks, to share learning and improve access, experience, and outcomes for people.

Transition and discharge planning was timely, person-centred, and based on individual need. Staff worked with people, families, carers, commissioners, local authority social care teams, and receiving services to ensure ongoing support was in place when people moved between services or returned to their local communities. This helped reduce the risk of gaps in care and supported safe, coordinated, and equitable access to aftercare.

The service reported waiting times for assessment of approximately 8 to 12 weeks, which staff advised were broadly in line with national averages for autism diagnostic services. Waiting lists were actively monitored, and patients were prioritised using a RAG (Red, Amber, Green) rating system based on risk and clinical need.

A range of measures were in place to support patients whilst awaiting assessment or intervention, including welfare and wellbeing checks, advice and guidance for patients and carers, and ongoing contact from intervention workers where appropriate. Patients waiting longer than 12 weeks were automatically escalated for review and prioritisation.

Staff told us that concerns could be escalated at any stage if risks increased. High-risk patients typically received weekly welfare contact, although capacity pressures had occasionally led to delays in follow-up for some patients. Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of these risks and emphasised the importance of effective communication between services to ensure that changes in need were identified and responded to promptly.

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

Staff understood the importance of identifying and addressing inequalities that could affect people’s experiences of care and their outcomes. The service actively sought the views of people who may be at greater risk of experiencing barriers, disadvantage, or poorer outcomes, including people with learning disabilities, autistic people, people from racialised communities, and people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

People were encouraged and supported to share their views about their care, treatment, and support in ways that were accessible and meaningful to them. Staff used feedback from people, families, and carers to inform person-centred care planning and service improvement. People felt listened to, respected, and empowered to contribute to decisions about their care. This helped promote a culture where people’s voices were valued and acted upon.

Staff had policies and processes in place to support equality, diversity, inclusion, and human rights. These promoted fair access, reduced the risk of discrimination, and supported staff to provide care that was inclusive and responsive to individual needs. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of equality and human rights principles and applied these in their day-to-day practice.

Reasonable adjustments were made to support people’s individual needs, preferences, and circumstances. This included adapting communication styles, providing information in accessible formats, using independent communication support where required, and considering people’s cultural, religious, sensory, social, and communication needs when planning care and treatment. Staff worked in a way that promoted dignity, respect, choice, and inclusion.

The service was engaged with wider organisational work to improve equity in mental health care, including the patient and carer race equality framework (PCREF). This supported the service to better understand and respond to the experiences of people from racialised and ethnically diverse communities. The framework promoted co-production with people and carers, supported the development of improvement plans, and helped embed anti-racist and inclusive practice across the service.

Staff completed mandatory equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) training, which supported them to recognise inequality, discrimination, and potential barriers to good outcomes. The service also had designated equality, diversity and inclusion leadership and governance arrangements, including an EDI lead and steering group. These arrangements supported oversight, learning, and action where differences in people’s experiences or outcomes were identified.

Staff demonstrated awareness of the impact that health inequalities, social disadvantage, communication barriers, and discrimination could have on people with learning disabilities and autistic people. They used this understanding to tailor care and support to individual needs and to promote more equitable outcomes.

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

Staff supported people, families, and carers to plan ahead and make informed decisions about future care, treatment, and support. Future planning was person-centred and focused on people’s wishes, strengths, needs, preferences, and long-term goals. Where appropriate, families and carers were involved in discussions to ensure plans reflected what was important to the person and supported positive outcomes.

Care, treatment, transition and discharge plans were reviewed regularly and updated when people’s needs, risks, circumstances, or preferences changed. Staff worked with people to identify goals that supported independence, wellbeing, community inclusion, and recovery. This included planning for changes in care arrangements, housing, education, employment, social opportunities, and ongoing support needs.

Staff provided holistic support to people preparing for transitions between services or into community settings. Planning considered physical health, mental health, communication needs, sensory needs, social care needs, risks, support networks, and reasonable adjustments. Staff worked with people and their families to ensure transitions were planned at the right pace and in a way that reduced anxiety and promoted continuity of care.

The service worked closely with external partners, including GPs, local authority social care teams, housing providers, advocacy services, commissioners, and other community services. This helped ensure people with learning disabilities and autistic people received coordinated support and that future care arrangements were safe, realistic, and responsive to individual needs.

Where housing or supported living needs were identified, staff supported people and their families to explore appropriate options. This included working with partner agencies to identify placements or community support that promoted independence while ensuring people had access to the right level of care and support at the right time.

Staff supported people to consider and document their future wishes in relation to care and treatment. This included advance care planning, ReSPECT forms, and do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions if clinically relevant. Staff ensured these discussions were handled sensitively and involved the person, their family, carers, advocates, and relevant professionals as appropriate.

Staff demonstrated a clear focus on long-term wellbeing, independence, and quality of life. Future planning was embedded within the service’s approach and supported people to move through care pathways safely, with the right support in place. This helped promote continuity, reduce the risk of unplanned changes or gaps in care, and supported people to achieve their best possible and sustainable outcomes.