- SERVICE PROVIDER
Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust
This is an organisation that runs the health and social care services we inspect
Assessment report published 27 April 2026
Contents
Ratings - Community-based mental health services for adults of working age
Our view of the service
We undertook an inspection of the trust’s community mental health services on 20 and 21 January 2026 as a follow‑up to our previous inspection in May 2025. The purpose of this inspection was to determine whether the service had made improvements since that inspection, after which the provider was issued with a Section 29A warning notice in relation to waiting times for patient appointments.
Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust provides mental health, learning disability and community health services across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. The trust serves a population of approximately one million people, has a budget in excess of £250 million and employs over 5,500 staff in a wide variety of roles. The trust works alongside schools, local hospitals, GP practices, social services and other local authority departments, including housing and education. It also works with voluntary organisations and local community groups to help ensure patients’ needs are met and that care is delivered to a high standard.
The trust provides care and support through three directorates: mental health; families, young people, children’s and learning disability and autism services; and community health services.
As part of the mental health directorate, Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust operates 8 community mental health teams (CMHTs) across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland:
- City West CMHT
- City East CMHT
- Northwest CMHT
- West Leicestershire CMHT
- Northwest Leicestershire CMHT
- East Leicestershire CMHT
- South Leicestershire CMHT
- Charnwood CMHT
In addition, the trust provides a range of specialist community mental health services, including a mental health access point, mental health liaison, assertive outreach, perinatal mental health services, psychosis intervention and early recovery (PIER), and crisis resolution and home treatment services.
During this inspection, we visited 3 community mental health teams: Northwest Leicestershire adult CMHT, East Leicestershire CMHT and City East CMHT. We also visited the Psychosis Intervention and Early Recovery (PIER) team.
We carried out an unannounced focused inspection and considered 3 of the 5 key questions to assess whether the services were safe, responsive and well led.
As part of the inspection, we spoke with 45 staff across a range of roles and grades, 18 patients who used the services and 7 carers. We reviewed 17 care records and observed a range of meetings, including staff huddles and multidisciplinary meetings. We also attended home visits and outpatient appointments to observe the delivery of care and treatment. In addition, we reviewed a range of data, including complaints, incidents and relevant policies.
On this inspection, we found the service had made significant improvements to patient waiting times and had met the requirements of the Section 29A warning notice. The trust was no longer in breach of regulations. The provider had reduced waiting times from referral to initial assessment from 133 days at the previous inspection to an average of 51 days, representing a reduction of 62%. While this remained an average of 9 days above the trust target, waiting times had improved substantially.
The trust’s target waiting time from initial assessment to the start of treatment was 126 days. At the time of this inspection, the average waiting time was 41 days, which was 77% below the trust target. The provider had processes in place to monitor patients’ mental health and clinical risks while they were awaiting assessment or treatment.
Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Compliance Summary
Staff had received face‑to‑face training on the Mental Health Act and demonstrated a good understanding of the Act, the Code of Practice and its guiding principles. Average training compliance for nurses and allied health professionals was over 92%. The highest completion rate was 100% in the Northwest Leicestershire CMHT, while the lowest completion rate was 85.7% in the East Leicestershire CMHT. Training compliance for doctors across all 4 teams was 100%.
Staff had easy access to administrative support and advice on implementing the Mental Health Act and its Code of Practice. Staff were able to clearly identify their Mental Health Act administrators, who were based at the hospital.
The provider had relevant policies and procedures in place that reflected current legislation and guidance. Staff had easy access to local Mental Health Act policies and procedures, as well as the Code of Practice.
The provider undertook monthly audits of compliance relating to community treatment orders. The overall compliance rate for November 2025 was 100%, with ethnicity recording completed in 94% of cases.
Mental Capacity Act
Staff generally had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, in particular the five statutory principles
The trust had a policy on the Mental Capacity Act, including deprivation of liberty safeguards. Staff were aware of the policy and had access to it. Staff knew where to get advice from within the provider regarding the Mental Capacity Act, including deprivation of liberty safeguards.
Staff took all practical steps to enable patients to make their own decisions. For patients who might have impaired mental capacity, staff had assessed and recorded capacity to consent appropriately. They did this on a decision-specific basis with regard to significant decisions.
When patients lacked capacity, staff made decisions in their best interests, recognising the importance of the person’s wishes, feelings, culture and history. The service had arrangements to monitor adherence to the Mental Capacity Act.
People's experience of this service
During this assessment, we spoke with 18 patients who used the service and 7 carers. Feedback from patients was overwhelmingly positive, with people consistently speaking highly of staff attitudes and behaviours. One person described staff as a “credit to the nation and the NHS”, explaining that staff were proud of their work, sympathetic and welcoming, despite the challenges associated with their roles. Another person told us that staff were “brilliant” and “could not do enough” to support them.
One person told us they felt “listened to for the first time in 20 years” and reported that staff had made a significant and positive difference to their life. In addition, a person who had experienced a period on a waiting list told us they felt supported throughout this time.
Carers also provided very positive feedback. One carer told us that staff had “helped 110%”, explaining that their son had not fully recovered following a first episode of illness while supported only by their GP, and subsequently experienced a second episode. They told us that involvement from the Psychosis Intervention and Early Recovery (PIER) team had resulted in their son receiving effective treatment and recovering well. The carer said this had “made a huge difference”. The same carer also described staff as polite and courteous, saying they were greeted with “good morning, how can I help?”.
Another carer told us that the medical support had been “great” and that staff had provided helpful advice on coping strategies. They also described a wide range of structured activities and social opportunities, which had helped them better understand their mental health and reduced feelings of isolation.
During our home visits and observations of care, we found that care was delivered in a caring and person‑centred way. Staff were warm and friendly, listened to patients, and responded appropriately to their needs.
The trust had a standard operating procedure in place for the Friends and Family Test (FFT), a nationally mandated tool used to gather feedback from patients who use services. FFT results were shared at corporate and directorate level and reported to commissioners.
The provider shared FFT results for the period July 2025 to January 2026. Overall, feedback was predominantly positive, particularly in relation to staff attitudes. Patients consistently described staff as kind, supportive and respectful. Patients were also positive about care delivery and communication, noting that staff took time to explain care and treatment and involved them appropriately in decisions. However, feedback also highlighted previous challenges with waiting times.