Hampshire and Isle of Wight Healthcare 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

This is the first inspection for this service since the formation of the new trust. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

The service treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. People’s needs and preferences were considered. Staff were provided with flexible working arrangements. However, staff were not always supported with lone working devices.

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 treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.

We observed care and treatment being given to people. All interactions we observed showed staff attitudes and behaviours were discreet and respectful. However, there were some interactions we observed where there were concerns about people leaving interactions with staff not sure of their next steps, and clinical need not always being followed up such as assessing any physical needs or exploring concerns raised about medicines.

The crisis resolution home treatment teams had regular meetings. Within these meetings complaints and compliments from people who had used services were shared with the team.

We received a monthly feedback report for the Crisis Resolution Home Treatment Teams (CRHTT) for April 2025 and August 2025 but feedback was limited with 5 people providing feedback for 4 CRHTT’s in April 2025 and 3 people providing feedback for 3 CRHTT’s in August 2025. Across the feedback results, most people said staff were available when needed and were treated with dignity and respect. Most people fed back that there was a respect for the religious, spiritual cultural needs of people who used services.

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

The Health Based Places of Safety (HBPoS) were wheelchair accessible.

Staff told us about times they had liaised with specialist teams to ensure people were appropriately supported, for example the dementia outreach team and the learning disability specialist team to support people who had used services. They also referred people to third party providers for autism services.

In all the HBPoS, people were regularly offered food, fluids and snacks. Menu options were offered for people to make their own choices at mealtimes.

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

We saw examples of discussions between staff and people who used services about protective factors that could support them in their mental health journey. This included any interests and activities they were a part of, their family and friends, and any employment.

Staff told us and we saw in care records that people’s cultural backgrounds were considered when supporting their care and treatment.

Staff discussed options available to people who used the service to support their next steps. This included referrals to wellbeing teams and community mental health teams.

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 saw in the Learning from Patient Safety Events (LFPSE) data that when there was no inpatient mental health bed available for people, the team recorded this as an incident and escalated the delay to senior management and the bed flow team.

The same data also described de-escalation techniques that had been used by staff for some incidents including positive therapeutic engagement to reduce the need for physical interventions when patients’ behaviours became heightened.

In the care records we reviewed we saw limited use of jargon so that people could understand their own care.

Most people who used services told us their views and wishes were taken into account when deciding on their care and treatment.

Teams were provided flexible working options and the service offered support to staff who needed it. However, the service did not always ensure all staff had access to alarms.

The trust had a flexible working policy and staff told us this was used in their teams, especially when staff had caring responsibilities. Teams were offered the opportunity to attend reflective practice sessions.

The trust told us the trust target sickness rate was to achieve 4.8% by March 2026. The average sickness rate from April 2025 to August 2025 across all of the CRHTT teams was 7%. We saw evidence in team meeting minutes of support being offered to staff when sickness had impacted negatively on the team in the West CRHTT.

Some staff at Mid and North CRHTT, Portsmouth CRHTT and IoW CRHTT told us that they did not always have access to personal alarms when lone working. The trust told us that they did not complete scheduled audits of lone working devices unless a request was made or following an incident. However, the trust had a lone working policy dated February 2024 which stated that, “The effectiveness of all local lone working procedures / Assessments will be audited annually by the corporate Health Safety Team (compliance) around Lone Worker app and device data.” And during inspection we did see a reminder for staff on the July 2025 business meeting minutes to carry their alarms with them.