Pennine Care 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

At our last assessment we rated caring as good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

Good: Most people who used services told us that staff treated them with compassion and kindness. Staff developed care plans which were reviewed regularly through multi-disciplinary discussion. Staff provided a range of treatment and care for people who used services based on national guidance and best practice. The team included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of people who used services. Staff from different disciplines worked together as a team to benefit people who used services. However, some people described, and we observed, less positive experiences of the service. For example, where calls were scripted and lacked personalisation.

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.

The service mostly treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion.

We spoke to 12 people who use services. Most people said staff were kind, non-judgemental, and helpful. However, one person we spoke with said a member of the multi-disciplinary home treatment team (HTT) team had been dismissive towards them.

We spoke to 11 carers of people that had used the service. Most feedback from carers was positive. However, 2 people commented that some members of a multi-disciplinary team had been ‘patronising’ and ‘dismissive’ with, or about, their relatives.

We observed care and treatment on one discharge home visit, in which staff attitudes and behaviours were discreet, respectful and responsive. However, we also observed incoming calls to the NHS 111 Option 2 service, where interactions were scripted and not personalised. We also observed an interaction with a carer who, whilst experiencing a distressing situation, was not offered somewhere private to be and was left unattended and visibly upset in a public waiting area.

The service provided examples of feedback given by people who used services via the family and friends survey between July and September 2025. People who used services mainly expressed satisfaction with the care and attitudes of staff. Out of 83 responses, 78 said the service was good or very good.

One person said they found the experience of using the service poor, commenting that the “experience wasn’t helpful”.

Staff at a health-based place of safety (HBPoS) told us that, if risk allowed, they would engage on a one-to-one basis with patients and that patients also had access to games and suitable therapeutic activities from the inpatient wards made available to them.

The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences. They took account of people’s culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

In multi-disciplinary and handover meetings, staff discussed the individual language needs of people who used services and how best to communicate with them including booking an interpreter. Most staff told us their teams had a diverse caseload with several people who needed an interpreter. Some staff told us that they either wanted to, or were, learning BSL to support people who used services.

Bury HTT had moved to a 24-hour service provision, and they told us this had improved their ability to meet people’s faith-related needs. For example, where people who used services were fasting and adopting temporary changes to dietary intake, they could support out of hours medicines administration.

The HTTs promoted people’s independence, so people had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The HTTs promoted people’s independence and ensured people had control over their own care and treatment. Staff told us the aim of the service was to ensure people were treated and cared for in the community as much as possible, and staff would adjust the level of care.

Staff, people who used the service, and carers said care was delivered in line with people’s choice. Most people who used the service said communication was good which enabled them to make informed decisions and choices about their care. The teams had access to a range of health care professionals, dependent on their individual needs.

People said staff provided information about medicines, and these were reviewed, including any potential side effects and benefits. This meant people were able to make informed decisions about their medicines.

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We observed handover, zoning, and multi-disciplinary meetings for the HTTs. Staff identified and responded to the changing needs of people on the caseload. The HTTs had processes in place to ensure people were reviewed and discussed regularly and were responsive when they had to change treatment plans. For example, when there was a delay to an assessment due to no interpreter being available, staff increased visits and contact and used alternative communication methods to provide support. They liaised with other teams when required and could increase the level of visits, provide a medical review or review medicines prescribed and provided.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to deliver person-centred care.

Across teams in the service, most staff told us they felt supported and respected by their colleagues and managers.

We observed a range of meetings in which staff contributed well to discussions about people’s care and respectfully challenged each other. Staff told us they were proud of their teams and of working for the trust.

Staff had a yearly appraisal in which they could discuss their development and performance with their manager. Across the 5 locality care hubs (which comprised HTTs alongside adult community mental health teams, neighbourhood mental health teams, early intervention teams and the assertive outreach team), average appraisal compliance in October 2025 was 90%.

Staff had access to services to support their health and wellbeing, for example the occupational health service and neurodivergent staff hub. Support was also available through the Resilience Hub in partnership with another local mental health trust.

Some staff praised the trust for the support they had received through some difficult personal challenges. We also heard from staff that the trust had an Equalities Officer who came and spoke to the teams, and there had been robust communication and support from executive level leaders to tackle the issue of racism sometimes directed at trust employees from people who used services.

When staff made home visits, their appointments were recorded and tracked with check in- and out systems to ensure everyone was safe, and most teams used lone worker devices. Most staff told us they felt safe with the systems in place.

However, whilst some staff at Stockport told us they had recently received new lone working devices, others told us they did not have lone working devices. We also saw that the trust’s lone working policy had lapsed in July 2025. The trust told us they had recently moved to a new provider for lone working devices, and the roll out of new devices to staff was still in progress. They also told us their lone working policy was in review and was due to be sign off in November 2025.