Kent and Medway Mental Health NHS 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

Responsive means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated responsive as good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

Patients received personalised care and support that reflected their individual needs, strengths and preferences. Staff supported patients to access education, volunteering opportunities and community activities, and used adapted communication approaches to support patients with learning disabilities and autistic patients to participate in decisions about their care and treatment.

Staff worked collaboratively with community teams, commissioners and external providers to support continuity of care, discharge planning and future placements. Patients were supported to prepare for greater independence through the Moving On Programme, relapse prevention work, graduated leave arrangements and skills-based occupational therapy interventions.

Patients had opportunities to provide feedback through community meetings and other feedback processes. Staff told us patient feedback had resulted in changes within the service, including improvements to ward information and cooking activities.

However, some carers told us communication from the service was not always consistent. Staff also told us some patients experienced delayed discharge pathways due to external commissioning processes and limited availability of specialist placements. During the assessment, we found the “You said, we did” board, which displayed actions taken in response to patient feedback, was not up to date.

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 evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and worked in partnership with people to respond to changes in their needs.

Patients told us staff understood their individual preferences, interests and goals. Care plans were written in accessible and person-centred language and reflected what mattered to patients, including hobbies and activities such as fishing, badminton, music and board games.

Patients were encouraged to make choices about their daily routines, activities and future goals. Staff supported patients to personalise their bedrooms and participate in activities that were meaningful to them.

Patients were involved in shaping aspects of the ward environment, including co-designing the garden area and contributing to menu choices through six-monthly tasting sessions.

Staff used accessible communication methods and personalised approaches to support patients with learning disabilities and autistic patients to express their views and participate in decisions about their care and treatment.

During the assessment, we observed staff supporting patients to engage in activities and routines that reflected their individual preferences and goals. Findings from the Quality of Life Tool also reflected personalised and inclusive support.

Patients received care and support that reflected their individual needs, strengths and aspirations.

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

Staff held regular multidisciplinary meetings, including daily multidisciplinary huddles, weekly ward rounds, six-monthly reviews and fortnightly transition meetings involving community providers and learning disability teams. Staff told us these meetings supported continuity of care and ensured risks, leave arrangements and discharge planning were reviewed regularly.

When appropriate, staff supported patients to access education, volunteering opportunities and community-based activities. Two patients attended college and one patient volunteered in the on-site canteen.

Patients and carers told us they were involved in discharge planning and transition meetings where appropriate. Staff worked collaboratively with external partners and community services to support safe transitions and continuity of care.

However, some nursing staff told us they relied on verbal handovers from ward rounds rather than routinely reviewing written documentation on RiO. This created a risk that staff would not always have a consistent understanding of patients’ care plans and clinical decisions.

Staff worked collaboratively across teams and services to support patients’ care, treatment and discharge planning.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and accessible information in formats tailored to individual needs.

Patients told us staff generally kept them informed about their care, leave arrangements and daily routines. Staff supported patients to understand information relating to their care and treatment using personalised approaches based on individual communication needs.

Staff used accessible communication methods and adapted tools to support patients with learning disabilities and autistic patients to express emotions, preferences and choices. For example, staff used personalised visual emotion scales, symbols, photographs and plain language to support patients to communicate their feelings and understand care and treatment decisions.

During the assessment, we reviewed accessible support plans which included symbols, photographs and plain language to support patients’ understanding and involvement in decisions about their care and treatment.

The ward environment included information relating to advocacy, patient rights and complaints processes in accessible formats.

Information governance systems supported the confidentiality of patient records and staff made notifications to external bodies when required.

However, some carers told us communication from the service was not always consistent or timely.

Patients were provided with information in ways that supported understanding, involvement and choice.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. People were involved in decisions about their care and informed about changes made as a result of feedback.

Patients told us staff listened to them and involved them in decisions about their care, leave arrangements and daily routines. Patients were involved in care planning, relapse prevention work and discussions relating to their future goals and discharge planning.

Patients had opportunities to provide feedback through weekly community meetings and other feedback processes. Staff told us community meetings were well attended and patients had influenced changes within the service, including simplifying ward information boards and increasing opportunities for cooking and healthy eating activities.

Friends and Family Test feedback from January 2026 was largely positive. The main theme identified for improvement related to food choices, and staff told us the service had introduced catering reviews and patient-led food initiatives in response.

Patients knew how to raise concerns or complaints. Two complaints had been received in the previous 12 months and both were upheld. Staff told us actions from complaints were monitored through governance processes and shared with the staff team.

Staff used accessible communication methods to support patients with learning disabilities and autistic patients to understand their options and express their views.

However, some carers told us communication from the service was not always consistent.

During the assessment, we found the “You said, we did” board, which displayed actions taken in response to patient feedback, was not up to date.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff worked collaboratively with community teams, commissioners and external providers to support discharge planning and continuity of care. Patients had access to post-discharge support and transition planning through fortnightly transition meetings involving community providers and learning disability teams.

Between 1 February 2025 and 31 January 2026, 3 patients had been discharged from the service. The average length of stay for discharged patients was 1695 days. Staff told us discharge pathways were often affected by external commissioning processes and the limited availability of suitable specialist placements. Staff discussed barriers to discharge regularly through multidisciplinary meetings and transition planning processes.

Patients told us they were supported to access education, volunteering and community opportunities. Two patients attended college and one patient volunteered in the on-site canteen. Patients also accessed community activities including shopping, bowling and cinema trips.

Staff adapted support and communication approaches to meet patients’ individual communication, sensory and emotional needs so they could participate fully in activities, care planning and daily routines.

During the assessment, we observed staff tailoring support and activities to patients’ individual strengths, preferences and abilities.

The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and adapted care and support in response.

Patients told us staff understood their individual communication, sensory and emotional needs and adapted support accordingly. Staff used personalised and accessible approaches to support patients with learning disabilities and autistic patients to participate in care planning, activities and decision-making.

Patients were able to provide feedback through community meetings, feedback processes and discussions with staff. Staff told us patient feedback had resulted in changes within the service, including simplifying information displayed on ward boards and increasing opportunities for cooking and healthy eating activities.

Records reviewed during the assessment showed staff adapted support plans and communication approaches to reflect patients’ individual strengths, preferences and support needs.

Staff were trained in equality, diversity and inclusion, with 100% of staff completing the training.

However, delays relating to external commissioning processes and limited specialist placement availability meant some patients remained in hospital longer than clinically required. This had the potential to affect patients’ experiences and progress towards discharge despite the service working proactively with commissioners and community teams to support transition planning.

The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes so they had enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Staff supported patients to prepare for discharge from the point of admission through the Moving On Programme, relapse prevention work and skills-based occupational therapy groups, including money management and weekly planning. Graduated leave arrangements, including escorted and unescorted leave, supported patients to develop independence and demonstrate increased stability and reduced risk over time.

Patients told us staff supported them to think about future goals, greater independence and plans for moving on from the service. Patients were supported to access education, volunteering and community activities as part of preparing for future community living.

Fortnightly transition meetings involving community providers and learning disability services supported discharge planning and continuity of care. Staff worked proactively with external partners to plan future placements and support safe transitions into the community.

Records reviewed during the assessment showed care plans reflected patients’ individual goals, strengths and aspirations for the future.

However, staff told us some patients experienced delayed discharge pathways due to external commissioning processes and limited availability of specialist placements.