Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust

Ratings - Child and adolescent mental health wards

• Overall

  Good

• Safe

  Good

• Effective

  Good

• Caring

  Good

• Responsive

  Good

• Well-led

  Good

Our view of the service

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust (CPFT) provides mental health wards for children and young people at the Darwin Centre for Young People. The service provides assessment and treatment of children and young people between the ages of 13-17 who require mental healthcare in an inpatient setting.

When we last inspected this service in 2021, there were 3 locations within the service. The Darwin Centre for Young People is now the only location providing inpatient care for children and young people.

The service can accept young people detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA).

This location is registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide the following regulated activities:

• Assessment or medical treatment for persons detained under the Mental Health Act 1983.
• Treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

We carried out an inspection of CPFT child and adolescent mental health wards on 13 May 2026. We inspected the service due to an aged rating. This service was last inspected in October and November 2021. At that inspection, the service was rated requires improvement for safe, with 4 breaches of the Health and Social Care Act Regulations (2008) for safe staffing, staff training in physical intervention and de-escalation, care plans and risk assessments and the seclusion room did not meet the required standards. This was a focussed inspection, where we inspected the safe key question. All other ratings from the previous inspection remained, and the overall rating was good.

At this inspection, we rated the service as good. The service had made improvements and is no longer in breach of regulations. The service now had enough staff to meet people’s needs, and staff were now trained in physical intervention and de-escalation. Care plans and risk assessments were now up to date and included all the required information. The seclusion room now met the standards set out in the Mental Health Act code of practice.

Our rating stayed the same. We rated the service as good. We found no breaches of regulations.

Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Compliance Summary

The service admitted young people informally and under the Mental Health Act 1983. Staff received and kept up to date with training on the Mental Health Act and the Mental Health Act Code of Practice and could describe the Code of Practice guiding principles. Training on the Mental Health Act was mandatory for staff, and the compliance rate was 96.4%.

Staff had access to support and advice on implementing the Mental Health Act and its Code of Practice. Staff received assistance from designated Mental Health Act staff, based at the trust.

The service had clear, accessible, relevant and up to date policies and procedures that reflected all relevant legislation and the Mental Health Act Code of Practice. For example, there was a process in place to monitor young people’s legal status and renewal dates, which meant staff were able to ensure reviews took place in a timely manner.

Staff explained to each young person their rights under the Mental Health Act in a way that they could understand, repeated as necessary and recorded it clearly in the young person’s record each time. Discussions with young people included information about the right to appeal against detention.

Staff made sure young people could take section 17 leave (permission to leave the unit or hospital) when this was agreed with the responsible clinician and ministry of justice where applicable. The use of leave from the ward was agreed by the multidisciplinary team. Arrangements for leave were made at daily planning meetings and nurses carried out an assessment of each young person’s mental state before each occasion of leave was utilised.

Staff requested an opinion from a Second Opinion Appointed Doctor (SOAD) when they needed to.

Staff stored copies of young people’s detention papers and associated records correctly and staff could access them when needed.

Clinicians demonstrated least restrictive practice principles. Young people were not detained under the Mental Health Act for any longer than was necessary.

Mental Capacity Act

Staff received and kept up to date with training in the Mental Capacity Act and had a good understanding of the 5 principles. Training on the Mental Capacity Act was mandatory for staff, and the compliance rate was 100%. Staff told us that training in the Mental Capacity Act also included Gillick competence. Gillick competence is used to assess whether young people under the age of 16 can consent to treatment.

Staff assessed and recorded capacity to consent clearly each time staff had reason to doubt whether a young person had capacity to make a particular decision. Staff completed an assessment of each young person’s capacity to consent to admission and treatment on admission. Further assessments took place during reviews by the multidisciplinary team.

People's experience of this service

We spoke with 7 young people and 5 carers. Most young people told us they felt safe on the ward and that they felt well supported and respected by staff. They described staff as friendly and approachable. All young people felt their medicines were managed well and they understood any changes made. Most young people told us they were aware of their care plans and were involved in updating them.

Some young people did not always feel listened to by staff. One young person told us they were not aware of their risk assessment or risk management plan. Some young people told us there had been occasions where leave was changed due to lack of an available driver.

Carers told us they were always invited to attend ward rounds and they felt involved in their child’s care. Carers told us staff were compassionate towards their loved ones. They felt staff understood their loved ones’ risks. Carers told us staff supported their children to be as independent as possible and were supportive in encouraging their engagement.

Some carers told us interventions were sometimes slow to be put in place. One carer felt they needed more support to manage risks during home leave. One carer felt they were not always informed about important meetings.