Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good.

We rated this key question Good because:

• The service worked to prevent the need for a hospital admission.
• The service gave people information in a format they could understand.

However:

• The young people were not always involved in care planning and did not always receive a copy of their care plan.
• Families said it was difficult to access the CAMHS and waiting times in the North Somerset team and the South Gloucestershire team had increased in the past 12 months.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We spoke to 8 parents of young people and asked if they had a care plan in place and got a mixed response, 4 told us the young person had a care plan and 4 told us they did not. All 4 of the parents who said the young person had a care plan, told us that they had been involved in developing it. The care plans were personalised and focused on their needs. Goals linked to care plans were recovery orientated and staff updated them regularly.

Staff encouraged young people to make decisions about their care and support. The service worked with the home treatment team to help young people stay at home. For example, providing nasogastric feeding in the community for young people with eating disorders.

Parents told us that the team would be involved with the young person’s Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) which identifies the needs of the young person, if they had one. Parents told us that the teams talked to schools and colleges to make sure the young person got consistent support. The young person we spoke to told us the team had helped them finish college and get a job.

Families told us that staff kept them up to date with the care that was being provided to their young relative. Parents told us that the information staff provided to young people was in a format that was right for them. For example, staff had explained things verbally instead of in writing and in easy read formats where appropriate.

The service would refer to other organisations when appropriate. For example, they would make referrals to the social care team.

The service used a secure electronic record system to keep records confidential. The trust had policies and procedures in place to support the confidential management of information. Staff received training in information governance and at the time of the inspection 89% of staff were up to date with the training.

The service could provide information in different languages and gave people information on how to complain.

There had been 13 complaints to the service in the 12 months prior to the inspection. None had been referred to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

The services had received 37 compliments at the June 2026 business meeting, most thanking staff for their support.

When the service received a complaint, they attempt to resolve the concern locally. The teams discussed complaints at the weekly business meeting. Managers shared any learning at team meeting and in supervision.

Staff knew how to handle complaints and would refer staff to the trust complaints team when needed.

The staff team could access support from psychiatrists throughout the working day. Once accepted on to the waiting list young people could access the crisis team 24 hours a day.

Families told us it took a long time to receive a service from the CAMHS teams. The average waiting time was different for each team. The North Somerset team had seen the waiting time increase from 38 days in June 2025 to 58 days in May 2026. The South Gloucestershire team had seen an increase from 53 days to 61 days. However, the Bristol North team had an average waiting time of 84 days, at the time of our inspection, which was down from 112 days the previous year. The waiting time changed based on the demand on the service and the needs of other young people on the waiting list. For example, if the mental health of a young person on the waiting list deteriorated, they would be seen before a young person who may have been waiting longer.

The service promoted a culture where they encouraged the young people to give their views of the service. Staff encouraged the young people to complete the ‘My Voice’ statement so that that their views could be considered at MDT meetings.

All staff received training in equality and diversity. At the time of the inspection 97% of staff had completed this training.

The teams worked with other organisations, when appropriate, to plan transitions. For example, the teams worked with inpatient services when a young person was admitted to hospital and on discharge. When the young people were approaching 18 the teams would work with adult services to plan the transition.