Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear 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 means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last inspection we rated caring as good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. Staff treated people who used the service with compassion and kindness. They respected people’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of people and supported people to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff involved people in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

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

We spoke with 9 people who used the service and 13 relatives or carers, observed 3 visits and 1 assessment and listened to 5 NHS 111 option 2 calls.

Across the crisis and home treatment teams staff treated people who used their services with compassion and kindness. They respected their privacy and dignity. They were responsive to people when they needed them and understood their individual needs. Staff supported people to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff provided emotional support and advice at the time people needed it. People who used services and carers said staff treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them.

We observed staff being respectful and showed compassion. Staff built up a good rapport with people and communicated well with them and provided help and support to people who used the service and carers and relatives who were involved in their care.

People told us staff had supported them to access other services, and referred, signposted or escorted them when required. Most people we spoke with understood their aftercare arrangements and said staff had involved them to make choices. Following discharge people said they felt reassured that they could contact the team anytime if they were in a crisis.

We spoke with 2 patients in the health-based places of safety, although 1 only briefly. The patient we spoke to at more length said they had been treated well by staff and with dignity and respect. They said they felt safe, had been given their medicine and staff offered to contact their carer or family for them.

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of the consequences. Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients.

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 service made adjustments for disabled people. When people were seen on site, staff used accessible rooms which were on the ground floor. People who had communication needs could access the service through a text service and deaf people had the option to use a sign language app. All of the health-based places of safety were on the ground floor.

Staff ensured that people who used services could obtain information on treatments, local services, and how to complain or provide feedback on the service. The information provided was in an accessible format. All people we spoke with knew how to contact the service including out of hours.

Staff told us they could produce information in different languages when required and had easy access to interpreters and signers.

Patients detained in the HBPoS were provided with a choice of hot food from the adjoining wards. All sites provided snacks and hot and cold drinks.

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

Staff gave people who used the service choice about their care and treatment. Several people we spoke with told us staff revolved care around them and let them direct the way they wanted it to go. For example, people had choice about referrals to other services, and the time of visits and were given information about medicines before they decided to take them. Families and carers were also involved with decision making when the person consented.

The service helped people access networks, forums or support groups that they may find helpful to maintain their mental health or other health concerns. This included the recovery college which was available in each locality and provided support, groups and activities to aid recovery.

Staff supported people to remain independent as much as possible and could signpost to third party organisations that could offer support. Peer support and support workers provided activities in the community, for example going for coffee or helping with social situations.

In health-based places of safety, patients could keep their mobile phones after an individual risk assessment. Chargers were kept in the safe and returned where possible following an individual risk assessment. Staff confirmed that a phone was available for patient use with staff support as required.

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.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, people who used the service. Each morning staff reviewed people whose risk had changed in risk meetings and planned care accordingly to meet people’s needs. Staff were flexible and visits could be planned and accommodated around people’s needs and wishes.

The service was available 24/7 and staff could respond quickly. When required, visits could be quickly increased dependent on need. People and relatives we spoke with were aware of how to contact the teams and said staff had been responsive whenever they had contacted them.

People and relatives said staff communicated well with them, explained their care plans and informed them when they would be visiting or making contact by telephone. Care plans were completed with people and staff offered them a copy.

In the health-based place of safety staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when patients’ behaviours became heightened. Staff received breakaway training. At the time of our inspection, 87% of staff were up to date with this training.

The trust had a policy on electronic cigarettes. People who were detained in the health-based place of safety did not have access to outside space and the trust was smokefree, however people were able to vape. Staff followed trust guidance to ensure the vapes were used, stored and charged safely.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Overall, staff felt respected, supported and valued. Morale was good in the teams, however prior to our inspection CQC had been alerted to concerns in the North Cumbria team related to leadership and staffing. We saw this had been recognised and discussed within team meetings. Managers had requested feedback from staff about how to make the workplace a positive space and staff attended the trust culture awareness training with a view to discuss next steps at future meetings.

Staff felt positive and proud about working for the trust and their team. Staff we spoke with told us they enjoyed their work, although many worried about working in the health-based place of safety due to past incidents of patient aggression and staff injury.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through the occupational health service, wellbeing helplines and a wellbeing hub. Staff could attend reflective practice which focused on wellbeing. Wellbeing was discussed and promoted in team meetings. However, the service’s staff sickness and absence was above average compared to the trust.

The provider recognised staff success within the service through staff awards.

Managers provided staff with an appraisal of their work performance. As of 30 November 2025, staff who had received an appraisal in the last 12 months was 81%. The team with the lowest compliance was the Northumberland and North Tyneside team. Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported.

Staff adhered to the trust’s lone working policy. Staff were provided with lone working devices and had procedures in place to keep them safe.