Leicestershire Partnership NHS 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

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At the last assessment 2019, we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness. They respected patients’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of patients and supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition.Co-production was embedded into the work on the unit.Staff involved patients in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

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.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with people showed that they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing people with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. Staff were caring and were observed to be doing whatever they could to ensure that the person’s experience was positive.

Staff supported people to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. People said staff treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them.

Staff directed people to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services. Staff took active measures to ensure that people were receiving care that was appropriate to their needs.

Staff understood the individual needs of people, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. People had access to a multifaith room on the unit and staff would support people to use the facility when required.

Staff on the unit had engaged the Trust’s charity, ‘raising health’, to support therapeutic visits. This included arranging visits from musicians, animals and artists as well as enhanced sensory resources.

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards people without fear of the consequences. Staff described an open culture on the unit where all staff felt safe to raise any issues or concerns.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about people.

We scored the service as 3. The providertreated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support andtreatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The service had made reasonable adjustments for disabled people, including access to the premises and support to meet individual communication needs. Staff ensured that all people admitted to the ward had a personalised health and care passport. On admission, staff completed the admission checklist and checked whether a passport was available on the person’s electronic health record. If one was not available, the multidisciplinary team worked with the person and their carer to develop one or updated an existing passport where needed.

The health and care passport gave staff important information to help them provide the right care and treatment, understand any reasonable adjustments required, and communicate effectively so that people’s voices were heard. Where reasonable adjustments were identified, staff added a digital flag to the person’s electronic health record, so these needs were clearly visible.

Staff understood the Accessible Information Standard and demonstrated awareness of how to adapt communication styles to individual people. Where people could not express preferences themselves, families and carers were fully involved in decisions.

Staff ensured that people could access information about treatments, local services, their rights and how to complain. Information was provided in easy-read formats and presented in a way people could understand.

Staff had access to information leaflets in languages spoken by people using the service. Managers also ensured that staff and people using the service could access interpreters and signers when needed.

People had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances. Staff helped people to complete a dietary choice checklist. This was easy read and enabled people to identify which foods they liked, disliked or wishes to try, and contained a weekly timetable of meals and snacks.

Staff ensured that people had access to appropriate spiritual support. People could use a multi-faith room within the unit when needed. People also had access to chaplaincy input, either from their own faith or LPT’s chaplaincy team, to provide support of people’s choice and spiritual needs.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff promoted people’s independence and ensured they had choice and control over their care, treatment and wellbeing. Staff encouraged people to participate in decisions about their daily routines and provided support that reflected their individual preferences. Co-production was embedded into the work on the unit, and this partnership working was used to develop and enhance the care provided. Where people were able, they were supported to express choices about activities, meals and personal care.

Staff gave examples of promoting independence in practical ways, such as supporting people to fulfil their own activities of daily living wherever possible. Staff ensured that people had access to the community including walks, outings to local cafes and sensory activities. These activities enabled people to maintain independence and control while still receiving safe, supportive care.

The service also made sure people were aware of their rights, and staff respected their choices, even when decisions differed from professional advice, provided these did not compromise safety. Staff confirmed that care planning was person-centred, flexible and regularly reviewed to reflect people’s changing needs and aspirations.

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

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, such as falls or pressure ulcers and care planned for these accordingly. Review of people’s care records showed that all people using the service had regular physical health checks in relation to the risk of falls and developing a pressure ulcer. Staff had identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, people.

Staff told us that they used de-escalation techniques whenever possible, and as a first resort, to reduce the need for physical interventions when people’s behaviours became heightened. However, we found that there had been a significant increase in the number of restraints between April 2025, when there were none, and February 2026, when there were over 40 incidents relating to one person on the unit. Although restrictive interventions had increased significantly, this was primarily attributed to the needs of one person with complex behaviours. Staff demonstrated appropriate use of de-escalation techniques, and governance oversight of restrictive practice remained robust.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Most staff felt respected, supported and valued and were positive about their team. However, staff consistently raised concerns about the impact of frequent incidents of violence and aggression.

The provider had systems and processes in place to support staff wellbeing. Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service. Staff also had access to reflective practice twice a week facilitated by psychology and debriefs were provided to staff following incidents. Although the provider had systems in place to support staff wellbeing, these had not fully mitigated the impact of ongoing incidents. Staff continued to experience injuries, including 3 incidents meeting RIDDOR (reporting of injuries, diseases and dangerous occurrences regulations criteria). This indicated that the provider’s arrangements were not always sufficient to ensure staff felt consistently safe and supported. In response the provider had increased support for staff, including visits from senior leadership.

The service’s average staff sickness April 2025 to March 2026 was 7.99%. The trust told us that elevated levels of acuity on the ward had led to increased sickness. The provider had several arrangements in place for staff support.

The provider recognised staff success within the service, for example, through staff awards. For example, both the team and individual staff members have been nominated for various awards. Over the last year, these have included co-production Champion Award 2025 (winner - individual), talent development award 2025, equality diversity award 2025, the Oliver McGowan Training Award 2025 (Winner Individual) and the people’s Award (held in June 2026).

Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported.