- SERVICE PROVIDER
Hertfordshire Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust
This is an organisation that runs the health and social care services we inspect
Assessment report published 18 August 2026
Contents
Ratings - Community-based mental health services for older people
Our view of the service
Community-based mental health services for older people provide assessment, treatment, and support to individuals with mental health conditions who are living within the community across Hertfordshire. The service comprises community mental health teams, crisis teams, and memory services.
Teams were based across six locations:
Oxford House in Bishop's Stortford,
Colne House in Watford,
Saffron Ground in Stevenage,
Rosanne House in Welwyn Garden City,
The Marlowes Health and Wellbeing Centre in Hemel Hempstead,
Seward Lodge in Hertford.
These sites provided coverage across the North, East, South West, and North West areas of the county.
At this inspection, we visited 4 service locations between May 6th and 7th 2026. These included Oxford House in Bishop's Stortford, Saffron Ground in Stevenage, Rosanne House in Welwyn Garden City, and The Marlowes Health and Wellbeing Centre in Hemel Hempstead.
The services comprised of community mental health teams, crisis teams and memory services. Community and crisis team were overseen by the same manager. Teams were staffed independently, yet worked collaboratively to maintain safe service delivery and ensure that patients supported by multiple teams, or transitioning between teams, received consistent and coordinated care. The services worked alongside the integrated care team who they could refer to for any patient that required support with frailty, physical health, social care and mental health needs.
The service was last inspected in 2014 and was rated as Good. At that time, several areas for improvement were identified. These included concerns that some memory clinic environments were not sufficiently welcoming for people using the service, delays between referral and assessment for some individuals, and inconsistencies in the documentation of mental capacity assessments.
During this inspection, the service was again rated as Good. Improvements were noted in all of the areas previously identified. However, further opportunities for improvement were identified in relation to staff lacking access to full GP records to monitor physical health. Clinics lacked on-site ECG equipment, making it difficult to track patient scan results. Pharmacy support was limited and reactive.
Mental Health Act
Compliance with Mental Health Act training was 98% among staff.
Staff were trained in and had a good understanding of the Mental Health Act, the Code of Practice, and the guiding principles.
Staff had easy access to administrative support and legal advice on implementation of the Mental Health Act and its Code of Practice. Staff knew who their Mental Health Act administrators were.
The provider had relevant policies and procedures that reflected the most recent guidance.
Staff had easy access to local Mental Health Act policies and procedures and to the Code of Practice.
Patients had easy access to information about independent mental health advocacy.
Staff explained to patients their rights under the Mental Health Act in a way that they could understand, repeated it as required and recorded that they had done it.
A small number of patients were admitted to hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983. In most cases, the patient was referred to the crisis team to arrange the admission to hospital. A small number of patients were subject to community treatment orders (CTO). Patients were assigned to a community nurse who monitored the patient’s condition. The service undertook audits to monitor compliance with requirements under Section 132 of the Mental Health Act, ensuring that people subject to Community Treatment Orders (CTOs) had their rights explained to them. Compliance with the requirement to explain rights to people subject to Community Treatment Orders within the required timescales was 100%.
Staff stored copies of patients' detention papers and associated records (for example, Section 17 leave forms) correctly and so that they were available to all staff that needed access to them.
Staff did regular audits to ensure that the Mental Health Act was being applied correctly and there was evidence of learning from those audits.
Mental Capacity Act
Staff had completed mandatory training in the Mental Capacity Act, with overall compliance of 97%
Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, in particular the 5 statutory principles
The provider 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 assessed and recorded capacity to consent appropriately. They did this on a decision-specific basis with regard to significant decisions. We observed capacity being considered during clinic appointments where patients had attended for a variety of decisions, such as consent to treatment and consent to participate in memory assessments.
When patients lacked capacity, staff made decisions in their best interests, recognising the importance of the person’s wishes, feelings, culture and history. We reviewed several best interest meeting minutes where decisions were made in the best interest of patients. For example, these decisions included capacity to consent to physical healthcare support and moving into a care home.
The service had arrangements to monitor adherence to the Mental Capacity Act.
Staff audited the application of the Mental Capacity Act and took action on any learning that resulted from it.
People's experience of this service
We spoke with 17 people using the service including family members of people using the service. Feedback gathered during the inspection was predominantly positive. People told us they were generally able to access the service in a timely manner, and that care and treatment were delivered in an informed and supportive way, with regular reviews and follow-up appointments.
People described the staff as ‘very good,’ ‘excellent,’ ‘lovely’ and staff as ‘always helpful.’ Family members spoke highly of the flexibility in accessing the service saying ‘They are happy to change times, and they are flexible with appointments’ although some said it could be difficult to get through to some sites on the phone.
Most carers said they had received a carers assessment.
Feedback from surveys including the ‘Friends and Family Test’ and ‘Have Your Say’, showed that patients and carers consistently praised staff for being compassionate, professional and person-centred. They felt listened to, respected and supported. However, feedback also highlighted ongoing concerns regarding access to services, including delays in assessments and follow-up care, alongside inconsistent communication and coordination between teams.