- SERVICE PROVIDER
Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust
This is an organisation that runs the health and social care services we inspect
Assessment report published 25 March 2026
Contents
Ratings - Forensic inpatient or secure wards
Our view of the service
The assessment of the forensic wards was completed on 4-6 November 2025, due to an aged rating. The service was last inspected in June 2016, when it was given a rating of good.
The forensic ward inpatient services were located in two units. Prospect Place was in Rochdale and Tatton Unit was in Tameside. Prospect Place could accommodate 47 male patients. There were three wards at Prospect Place. The Engagement and Assessment ward had 15 beds; Recovery and Intervention ward had 15 beds and Social Inclusion ward had 17 beds. The Tatton Unit had one ward only with 16 beds.
Each ward had its own admission and discharge criteria. Patients were generally admitted to the assessment ward at Prospect Place. Throughout the course of their inpatient stay, patients usually moved to the recovery ward and finally the social inclusion ward prior to discharge from Prospect Place. Patients were moved between the wards at Prospect Place and could be transferred to the Tatton Unit depending upon their needs. The Tatton Unit provided slower placed, longer term care for patients. Admissions were prison transfers and from acute inpatient units including psychiatric intensive care units.
At the last inspection in June 2016, the service was rated as good. There were no regulatory breaches but we asked the trust to improve mandatory training compliance, menu choices, availability of Mental Health Act staff, access to the garden at the Tatton Unit and the availability of exit interviews for staff who were leaving the service.
We found that most areas had been improved, however some of the essential mandatory training courses were below the trusts’ rate of compliance; there was a vacancy for a Responsible Clinician which was impacting on patients; supervision at the Tatton unit was low, the seclusion room at the Tatton Unit had inadequate temperature controls and there was opened but unlabelled medication in the clinic room at the Tatton Unit. There was a lack of access to face to face training on learning disability and autism, which was a challenge across all Greater Manchester Trusts. Compliance with the learning disability and autism on line training was at 100%.
At this assessment we found 2 breaches of regulations. These were Regulation 18 Staffing and Regulation 15 Premises and Equipment.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Compliance Summary
Training compliance in the Mental Health Act was at 70% across all four wards. This was below the providers target of 90%.
Staff that we spoke with had a good understanding of the Mental Health Act, the Code of Practice and the guiding principles.
Staff had easy access to administrative support and legal advice on the implementation of the Mental Health Act and its Code of Practice. Staff knew who their Mental Health Act administrators were and how to contact them.
Staff had easy access to local Mental Health Act policies and procedures and to the Code of Practice. These were accessed via the staff intranet.
At the time of the assessment, 74% of staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act.
Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, in particular the five statutory principles. Staff were able to talk about this confidently during the assessment.
The provider had a policy on the Mental Capacity Act, including deprivation of liberty safeguards (DOLS). Staff were aware of the policy and had access to it on the staff intranet.
Staff took all practical steps to enable patients to make their own decisions. This included encouraging patients to attend their meetings, discussing care and treatment in one to one sessions and including them in the development of their care plans.
People's experience of this service
Patients said staff treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them. We spoke with 9 patients during the assessment. All 9 patients said that staff were kind and treated them with dignity and respect. One patient said that the night staff were not as good and that he had to wait to get a cup of tea during the night shift as staff were busy. All patients had been offered a copy of their care plans but some had declined this. Patients felt confident that they were being helped to manage their physical health issues including a patient who needed an inhaler for asthma. Patients said that they were encouraged to attend their monthly ward rounds. However, 2 patients felt that it was hard to speak with a doctor outside of the ward round and they had to wait for this. Three out of 9 patients said that the food needed improvement and described the menu as repetitive and that there were off meal combinations. A patient at Prospect Place had enjoyed the ward celebration of Black History month and confirmed that they were able to choose the Halal meal options from the menu. All patients were able to seek advice and information on medication and treatment and all of the patients had their rights explained to them by staff. We carried out a SOFI at Prospect Place during the assessment. Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) is a Framework for directly observing and reporting on the quality of care experienced by people who may not be able to describe this themselves. We saw that during a challenging time on a ward, staff and a senior manager responded very quickly to patients’ distress and were patient and caring in their interactions.
We spoke with 3 carers during the assessment. All 3 carers told us that they thought the staff were kind, caring and committed to their patients. They described the staff as being very professional and said that communication had been good, had received regular updates about their loved one and were informed of incidents and changes to care and treatment. One carer said that staff had responded quickly and took action when their relative had experienced discrimination on the ward. Another carer said that staff were firm but fair and that they enforced the rules whilst remaining compassionate. The carers had been invited to patient’s meetings and had attended via Zoom. Two out of the 3 carers said that they had a good relationship with their relative’s named nurse and one said that the social worker had gone out of their way to offer support. One of the carers had attended the carers group and had found it helpful.