- SERVICE PROVIDER
Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
This is an organisation that runs the health and social care services we inspect
Assessment report published 3 June 2026
Contents
Ratings - Community-based mental health services for older people
Our view of the service
We completed an assessment of Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust and assessed 1 assessment group: Community-based mental health services for older people
The assessment followed CQC’s Single Assessment Framework (SAF) and considered all quality statements under each key question.
Onsite assessment activity took place between 3 and 5 February 2026.
Offsite assessment activity took place between 10 and 13 February 2026, when we gathered feedback from patients and carers via telephone.
We spoke with 26 members of staff and 12 patients and carers during the assessment.
This was an announced assessment, which means the service was told an assessment was going to be starting beforehand.
Community mental health services for older people operated from 5 locations, 4 within Birmingham and 1 in Solihull. During this assessment, we visited 4 of these teams, as follows:
South Hub – Juniper Centre, Moseley Hall Hospital site, Alcester Road, Moseley, Birmingham, B13 8AQ
East Hub – Little Bromwich Centre, 150 Hob Moor Road, Birmingham, B10 9JH
Solihull Hub – Maple Leaf Centre, 2 Maple Leaf Drive, Marston Green, Birmingham, B37 7JB
North Hub - Reservoir Court, 220 Reservoir Road, Erdington, Birmingham, B23 6DJ
These services comprised of community mental health teams, a community enablement and recovery team, an older people’s intervention pathway, memory services and care home liaison teams. Older people requiring intensive care and treatment for a short period of time were supported by the Home Treatment Teams.
The service had previously been assessed by CQC in March 2017. At that inspection, the overall rating was good. The key question safe was rated requires improvement and key questions effective, caring, responsive and well-led were rated as good.
At the 2017 assessment we identified breaches and issued requirement notices for regulation 12 safe care and treatment and regulation 18 Staffing. For regulation 12 this was in relation to ensuring there were effective processes in place for the safe and secure handling of medicines. For regulation 18 this was related to caseloads being high and some staff reporting they worked in their own time to complete essential case recording.
As part of this assessment we checked to see that concerns at the previous inspection had been addressed. In relation to the safe and secure handling of medicines, this assessment identified several areas of concern, including high clinic room temperatures, lack of clear separation of medicines, incomplete depot drug records, absence of records showing which staff were authorised to administer medication, no system to log medication received, stored, or taken out of the service, and insecure storage of medication keys. We have concluded there continues to be a breach of Regulation 12(2)(g) The proper and safe management of medicines.
During this assessment we found that the service had worked to address high caseloads for nursing staff. Staff were no longer working in their own time to complete essential recording. We consider the service to no longer be in breach of regulation for this area of work. However, managers recognised that further work was needed to reduce caseloads, particularly for consultant psychiatrists.
Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Compliance
Mental Health Act
Staff training in the Mental Capacity Act and Mental Health Act legislation was at 100% compliance across the service.
A small number of patients were admitted to hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983. In most cases, the patient was referred to the home treatment team to arrange the admission to hospital. A small number of patients were subject to community treatment orders (CTO). For example, in Solihull only one patient was under a CTO. This patient was assigned to a community nurse who monitored the patient’s condition. The patient lived in a care home.
Mental Capacity Act
Review of patient care records found that staff did not consistently assess or document patients’ mental capacity to consent. Formal capacity assessments and established consent arrangements were often absent from the electronic care record system. In some cases, progress notes stated that patients lacked capacity but did not specify the decision in question. For these patients there was no evidence of formal capacity assessments, nor documentation of when assessments were conducted, how they were undertaken, or by whom.
People's experience of this service
We spoke with 12 patients and carers across the service about their experiences of care.
Most patients and carers we spoke to gave positive feedback about the service.
They consistently described staff as kind, respectful, helpful and professional, and said they felt listened to and treated with dignity.
Most patients were satisfied when care was delivered by the same nurse or clinician, as this helped them feel at ease and understood by someone familiar with their history. However, 1 carer highlighted concerns about seeing multiple clinicians across appointments, which meant repeatedly having to re-explain their circumstances.
Some patients expressed dissatisfaction with having to wait longer than expected to be seen when clinics ran behind schedule, while others felt appointments generally started on time.
Patients and carers reported that medication and treatment plans were explained clearly, with regular reviews and appropriate monitoring in place.
Patients told us they valued the service’s flexibility, with staff visiting patient’s homes to provide care when attending the clinic was difficult or less suitable