Lincolnshire Community Health Services 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 Commentary

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

At our last assessment we rated this key question outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This service scored 79 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff we spoke with gave examples where care was based around individual needs and preferences, such as flexible visiting arrangements and providing a variety of gluten free snacks from ward funds as the hospital selection was limited.

Staff told us how they supported patients to make their own decisions about their care and treatment and recorded this in the clinical record.

Managers planned and organised services, so they met the changing needs of the local population. Staff told us that patient acuity had increased over the last 12 months.

Staff knew about and understood the standards for mixed sex accommodation and knew when to report a potential breach.

Facilities and premises were appropriate for the services being delivered. Wards were designed to meet the needs of patients living with dementia.

The service had systems to help care for patients in need of additional support or specialist intervention. Staff were able to access specialist equipment however they said there were sometimes delays in delivery. The service was inclusive and took account of patients’ individual needs and preferences.

Staff understood and applied the policy on meeting the information and communication needs of patients with a disability or sensory loss.

The service had information leaflets available in languages spoken by the patients and local community, loved ones and carers could get help from interpreters or signers when needed.

Staff and managers told us how they made notifications to external bodies as needed.

The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard. Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, how to complain. Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by patients.

Managers demonstrated how they ensured carers, families and commissioners were regularly updated about the patient’s progress.

Community hospitals received a total of 13 formal complaints. The provider identified two predominant overarching issues were identified, these were concerns regarding discharge processes and decision-making and concerns regarding standards of care and rehabilitation input.

Of the 13 formal complaints received the trust has deemed 7 as “partially upheld” and 6 as “not upheld.”

Patients and carers we spoke with knew how to complain or raise concerns. Staff we spoke with knew how to handle complaints appropriately.

Managers did not always ensure patients were admitted during the day or early evening. In the 6 months prior to the assessment 35% of patients were admitted across the service between 7pm and 7am.

Staff we spoke with said there was a waiting list for patients to be admitted, they told us they occasionally felt pressurised to admit patients. They said they were able to challenge the decision which sometimes meant the patient remained on an acute ward until agreement was reached as to the patient’s suitability.

Managers and staff worked to make sure patients did not stay longer than they needed to. Mangers monitored No Criteria to Reside (NCTR) definition (previously described as Delayed Transfers of Care). The number of patients meeting NCTR criteria increased from August 2025 due to identified system changes regarding equipment supplies and reablement capacity in the local authority as well as increased patient acuity and complexity.

Staff started planning each patient’s discharge as early as possible. We looked at 25 records, and all patients had an estimated discharge date.

Staff reported there were issues with external transport provision, there were 15 examples since August 2025 which were reported on the electronic incident system. The incidents related to both outpatient appointments and discharge transfers.Several cases involved repeated transport failures for the same patient, resulting in multiple appointment cancellations and, in some instances, delays to rehabilitation or onward treatment. These included dialysis appointments, fracture clinic reviews, oncology-related investigations, and urgent suspected cancer pathways

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We looked at 25 care records, we found that staff supported patients to make decisions about their care and treatment and their future, for example Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPRs)

Staff create personalised care plans to account for the patient’s needs, wishes and feelings.

We saw care for people who are nearing the end of their life was managed and communicated in a sensitive and dignified way.