Hertfordshire Partnership University 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

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

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.

The provider treated young people with kindness, compassion and respect, and there was generally a positive relational culture across the ward.

Most of the young people told us that staff were polite and respectful in their day-to-day interactions. When we asked if staff were polite, young people responded with “yes” and “most of the time, yes”. One young person said, “I would say it’s 50/50 – bank staff not so much”. Two young people said that staff sometimes spoke to each other in their own language on the ward, which they did not like as they did not always feel included in conversations.

When we asked young people if staff knocked before entering their bedrooms, 2 young people said yes, whilst 1 young person said that staff did not knock, and they had to keep reminding them.

The Forest House team document each young people's preferences and wishes in their care plans. They assign same-gender staff to support young people where possible, maintaining their privacy and dignity, however one young person we spoke with said that they would like it if women would be allocated to support them on one-to-one observations, and not men.
 

The provider treated young people as individuals and made efforts to ensure care and support and treatment reflected their unique needs, strengths, backgrounds and preferences.

Some young people reported limited involvement in the development of their nursing care plans. For example, 1 young person said, “I have a care plan, but I have no involvement in it”, with others describing partial involvement. However, young people and carers confirmed that families and young people were consistently involved in care planning in ward rounds. Our observations of ward rounds during our site visit demonstrated that the provider made consistent efforts to ensure that care and treatment reflected young people’s individual circumstances and maximised opportunities to involve young people in decision making.

Staff showed a commitment to ensuring that emphasis was placed upon the diverse cultural backgrounds of young people and staff. Cultural and religious dietary options were available. One young person told us they were provided with halal food, although reported it was limited in variety.

Two young people told us that there was no prayer room available in the unit. The provider informed us that plans were in place for a purpose-designed multifaith room and that bedrooms can be used for prayer on service user’s request.

The provider promoted young people’s independence and supported choice and control over their care, treatment and wellbeing, while appropriately balancing this with safety and risk management in an inpatient CAMHS setting.

Young people told us they felt supported to make choices about their care. They described being involved in ward rounds and treatment reviews, including discussions about medication and leave. One young person told us they received information about their medicines in ward rounds. All young people said their families were involved in ward round discussions, supporting shared decision making.

Young people had access to a structured programme of activities, including education and occupational therapy led sessions. Young people were actively encouraged to be involved in choosing activities and staff demonstrated a commitment to ensure that activities also reflected the diverse cultural backgrounds of young people. We reviewed a selection of patient involvement reports from 2025, which included examples of co-production of activities taking place on the unit such as animal therapy, Easter scavenger hunts, trips to a petting zoo, celebrations of Black History month and pottery painting.

We also reviewed community meeting minutes which demonstrated that young people were actively involved in the shaping and running of the meeting. Meeting minutes were handwritten by young people and included direct feedback on how to improve their care, such as ideas for new activities and a need for more food variety.

The provider listened to and responded to young people’s needs, views and distress in a timely and supportive way, with systems in place to recognise and respond to risk, discomfort and deterioration.

Young people told us that staff were available and responsive when they needed support. One young person said that there is “nearly always staff around”, and another told us “yes, if not a nurse, then another staff member”. Young people told us they knew what to do if they needed help.

Staff were aware of young people’s needs through regular observations and developing therapeutic relationships. We saw that personal alarms and nurse call bell systems were in place to support with assisting to young people’s needs.

The provider recognised that there was a need to improve the ways in which the unit meets the needs of a neurodivergent cohort of young people and demonstrated commitment to this through development of a bespoke sensory room and undergoing accreditation with the National Autistic Society.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff had access to regular supervision, with supervision compliance reported at 91.3%. in addition, the service had embedded a range of reflective and supportive forums, including reflective practice sessions and multidisciplinary learning spaces. These forums supported staff to reflect on emotionally challenging incidents and contributed towards improving psychological safety.

Staff we spoke to said they felt supported and valued as a team member. One staff member said, “it’s lovely to work at Forest House” and another said “teamwork is great”. All the staff we spoke to said that they feel that there is an adequate amount of staff wellbeing resources available to help them if required.

The service recognised the impact of workload on staff wellbeing and monitored staffing pressures closely. Staff wellbeing was further supported through a culture of inclusivity and learning. Staff were encouraged to contribute to service improvement and the development of unit-specific policies.