Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust

Ratings - Perinatal services

• Overall

  Good

• Safe

  Requires improvement

• Effective

  Good

• Caring

  Good

• Responsive

  Good

• Well-led

  Good

Our view of the service

We assessed Andersen Ward Mother and Baby unit on 25 November 2025.

This was the first assessment of Andersen ward since Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust took on the running of the service.

Laureate House, the location where Andersen ward was based, was registered with CQC in January 2017 under the provider Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust to deliver the regulated activities: Assessment or medical treatment for persons detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, Diagnostic and screening procedures and Treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The service had a controlled drugs accountable officer and a Nominated Individual.

Andersen ward is a mother and baby inpatient unit with 10 ensuite rooms and a flat for fathers to stay to be involved in their baby’s care.

At this assessment we identified breaches of regulations: 12 Safe Care and Treatment and 18 Staffing.

At this assessment we assessed the perinatal services assessment service group where we assessed 33 quality statements.

Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Compliance Summary

Staff received training in Mental Health Act awareness, with 100% compliance. Staff had easy access to administrative support and legal advice on implementation of the Mental Health Act and its Code of Practice. Patients had easy access to information about independent mental health advocacy. Information was displayed on the ward.

Staff received training in the Mental Capacity Act, with 94% compliance. Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act. Staff took all practical steps to enable patients to make their own decisions. We saw a capacity assessment and detailed notes regarding a best interest decision relating to a patient’s labour and caesarean section.

We rated the service as good. The service was delivering evidenced based care and treatment and had a full multidisciplinary team with a variety of professionals to support women and their babies holistically.

The service had positive working relationships with community teams and external providers to deliver tailored support to parents and their babies. Staff treated patients with kindness and compassion and were responsive to their needs. Patients were supported to have choice and control and were involved in planning their care.

Leaders were skilled and knowledgeable about the service and were approachable to staff and patients.

However, we found 2 breaches of regulations in relation to: assessing and mitigating risk and training and induction of staff.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

People's experience of this service

We spoke with 4 patients during the assessment and 5 partners. We also conducted a SOFI2 (Short Observational Tool for Inspection) to observe the care and staff interactions that patients were receiving.

Patients told us that staff were supportive and listened to them. They were involved in the creation of their care plans and had copies.

Activities took place and patients told us some were aimed at them, for example crafts, cooking and baking and other activities were focused on their babies, for example baby massage. Patients valued the psychological interventions they were offered.

Patients told us they were included in their ward rounds and were asked for their views on their treatment. However, at times the meetings were daunting with too many people in them.

They said the dryer in the laundry room was not working and would appreciate instruction for how to use the washing machine.

Patients said that staff conducting observations at night used a torch which at times was shone on them and baby, it was very bright and disturbing.

Patients said the food was quite bland, over cooked and not very appetising, they would welcome the opportunity to do more cooking.

Partners told us they were provided with information about the service and were involved in meetings, including reviews of their loved ones care. Partners told us they were also involved in the assessment, care planning process and goal setting. Partners told us the visiting was very flexible to enable them to spend time with their loved one and baby.

Partners told us that the service did not keep them as updated as they would have liked, for example in relation to leave arrangements and discharge planning. Partners also noticed a difference in the care provided by the night staff compared to the day staff. There seemed to be more bank and agency staff and partners felt that the night staff were not as caring as the regular day staff.

A partner also felt their loved one had been discharged too soon from the service, however they did have support in the community.