Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation 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

Are services Responsive? This means we looked for evidence that the service met patient’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating went down. We rated this key question as requires improvement because staff did not ensure that care provided was always person-centred and that it met patient’s needs.

The 136 suites were not always available for patients who needed them because there were a significant number of patients being cared for in them for long periods of time whilst they waited to be admitted to inpatient services. The average length of stay in the past 12 months was 90 days. This meant the S136 suites were often occupied and unavailable for new patients, who often had to wait in emergency departments or in inappropriate settings such as The Havens instead.

The service did not always learn from complaints.

The service was in breach of Regulation 9: Person-centred care of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

This service scored 62 (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 1. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always make sure patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with patients, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in patient’s needs.

The service did not ensure that care provided was always person-centred and that it met patient’s needs. Patients who were referred to and had stayed over 23 hours at the Havens did not always have a care and treatment plan. The Havens was described by the trust as a community-based mental health crisis unit that cared for patients by a trained clinician for up to 23 hours, who were in crisis. However, patients were staying at the Havens for weeks, with over 652 cases of patients staying at the Havens for over 24 hours with one patient staying at the Haven for 69 days in the last 12 months. We identified that many patients were waiting long periods of time to be transferred to a more appropriate setting such as a hospital. This meant that patients who required urgent intervention and support did not have access to the right level of care and treatment from a multi-disciplinary team which put them at risk of harm.

The Havens did not have an up-to-date operational policy that staff understood and was able to refer to. At the time of inspection, staff we spoke with said they had not seen the policy because the policy was still in draft. Staff also did not consistently ensure that when a patient stayed longer than 23 hours, this was reported as an incident in line with trust policy. The lack of a clear operational policy for the Havens meant that staff did not consistently record and initiate an extended pathway care plan which was required for when patients exceeded their length of stay. This impacted on their care and treatment being reviewed and managed appropriately. This practice was not person-centred and increased the risk of patients not receiving the level care that they needed.

At the time of our inspection, the Section 136 suites had closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras in the bathroom which were being monitored by staff. We observed that a female patient was being monitored by male staff members in the Section 136 suites including when they used the toilet without consideration for the patient’s dignity and privacy. The patient’s individual care record did not demonstrate that the use of CCTV had been appropriately assessed and explained to the patient. We raised our concerns with the trust following the inspection, and we were informed that all bar one of the CCTV cameras in the toilets and bathroom had been decommissioned.

The trust told us that the 136 suites had been used as inpatient beds 263 times in the last 12 months with an average length of stay of 90 days. This was not in line with the Royal College of Psychiatrists Standards on the use of Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (England and Wales).The service did not always ensure that there was robust oversight to ensure that when the 136 suite was used as inpatient bed, patients continued to receive timely and appropriate care and interventions. At the time of our assessment, we identified one patient at the 136 suite in Langley Green Hospital who had been detained under section 2 of the MHA for and remained in the 136 suite without a clear plan or multidisciplinary team review.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of patients and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff ensured that, when required, patients under the care of a crisis service had access to education and work.. One patient who was in college said timely support they received from staff when they were in crisis helped them continue their course.

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with their families and carers. For example, we saw that a patient who was admitted to the Section 136 suite at Woodlands was being supported by a family member daily and was actively involved in planning their care and treatment.

Patients told us that staff discussed their faith with them. Some of the crisis resolution and home treatment teams consisted of a full multidisciplinary team including doctors, nurses, psychologists and occupational therapists who worked with patients to develop comprehensive care and safety plans. Some patients reported that the plans developed in collaboration with staff had helped them manage their daily activities.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service provided information in a way that met the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The Accessible Information Standard is a legal requirement for NHS and adult social care services to ensure patients with disabilities, impairments, or sensory loss can access and understand information and receive communication support.

The Trust offered services for patients with hearing, visual, and language impairments through providers like Action Deafness (British Sign Language), Sussex Interpreting Services, and Vandu Language Services. The information provided was in a form accessible to the patient group. The trust provided a translation service via a third party, and it also recommended Google Translate for most written translations.

The service ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights and how to complain.

Staff ensured carers, families and commissioners were regularly updated about the patient’s progress, and they made notifications to external bodies as needed.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always make it easy for patients to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They did not always involve patients in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Patients and their carers told us they knew how to complain. Patients and their carers told us they were receiving good care and support from staff and did not need to complain. However, some patients and carers told us that they were fearful that complaining might impact on their care.

While we saw evidence that the trust investigated complaints and learned lessons this was not always consistent. For example, we reviewed a patient complaint where they raised concerns about an incorrect prescription, therefore the pharmacy could not dispense their medication. It took 6 days for the prescription to be corrected which meant the person was put at risk of not being able to access their medication during this time. Another incident of a similar nature happened in October 2024 and on both occasions the provider did not document any lessons learned to improve how medicines were prescribed.

The trust reported 48 statutory complaints, concerns, requests for help and early resolution in the last 12 months across the service. The total number of statutory Complaints upheld by the trust was 7. One complaint was upheld by the local Government and Social Care Ombudsman relating to delay in admission and the patient was held in at the Haven which was not appropriate to their needs.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that patients could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

On most occasions, the service ensured the physical health needs of patients were met. The health-based places of safety and Havens were at ground level, with disabled access which meant that patients who were wheelchair users or with mobility problems could access the service.

Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients, for example, those with additional communication needs or physical health needs. Staff had access equipment to support patients such as wheelchairs, walking frames and so on.

Staff at the crisis resolution home treatment teams told us they ensured patients had access to post-discharge care such as S117 aftercare and communicated with community mental health services.

Staff planned for patients’ discharge, including good liaison with care managers/co-ordinators. However, one patient reported that they were concerned they were not ready before they were discharged from the crisis service. They reported they were then admitted to an inpatient service when they could no longer access support from the team and their condition deteriorated.

Under the Mental health Act 1983, the trust has a statutory duty to report breaches of the 24-hour limit for patients detained under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 to ensure patients were not being unlawfully detained. The trust reported 17 cases of section 136, and 18 cases of section 135, 24-hour breaches at the health-based places of safety in the last 12 months.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about patients who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The trust provided mandatory training in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights for all staff. Training was provided both face to face and via e-learning. Some of the modules included inclusive language communication, neurodiversity, trans and non-binary awareness. At the time of the inspection over 96% of staff had completed the equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights training across the team.

Staff and patients who used the service said the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the patients using the service felt empowered to give their views. The trust held quarterly Patient and Carer Race Equality Framework (PCREF) community engagement events. PCREF is the national anti-racism framework launched by NHS England and co-designed with services, patients, and carers. It supports mental health Trusts to improve the experiences, access and outcomes for ethnically and culturally diverse communities.

The trust held a PCREF community engagement meeting in May 2025 which was well attended, including 35 community members and advocates, voluntary or faith organisations, patients with lived experience and carers, with representation from 12 third sector organisations, as well as senior executives from the trust. Some of the issues discussed included limited awareness for the trust services and poor access to services with barriers to access.

The provider had undertaken equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable patients or patients with protected characteristics at a disadvantage.