Coventry and Warwickshire Partnership NHS 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 assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating stayed the same. Staff treated most patients with compassion and kindness. They respected patients’ privacy and dignity.

However, 4 patients told us staff did not treat them with kindness. Staff did not treat all patients as individuals and were not always responsive to patients’ immediate needs.

This service scored 70 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated most people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Most patients felt they were treated with kindness, compassion and dignity in their day-to-day care and support. We asked 15 patients across all wards if staff treated them with kindness and compassion. Eleven patients said yes and 4 patients said no. One patient on Quinton (Westwood) ward said “staff went above and beyond” to support them. A patient on Swanswell ward told us about how well staff supported them after a bereavement. One patient said staff provoked them and made them angry, another said staff were not nice. Another patient told us regular staff were kind but bank staff did not care. We spoke with 3 carers of patients at the service and asked them if staff treated their relative with kindness and respect, all 3 said yes. Sherbourne ward implemented ‘Safewards’ (Safewards isan evidence-based model for mental health services designed to reduce patient-staff conflict and the use of restrictive practices like restraint and seclusion), which staff described as promoting kindness and compassion. During our visit we observed kind and supportive interactions between staff and patients. We observed staff treating colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The Trust tried to ensure patients’ personal, cultural, social and religious needs were met. Following the inspection the Trust shared an example of a patient meal ordering sheet in use across wards at the time of the inspection. This meal sheet had a range of meal options including vegetarian, vegan, halal and Caribbean. The Trust reported feedback received from ‘I want great care’ (IWGC) data related to food and drink at the Caludon was recorded at 3.71 out of 5 between February and Aril 2025. However, we asked 6 patients if staff met their cultural, social and religious needs. Four patients told us staff did not meet these needs. Two patients on Quinton (Westwood) told us they were unable to practice their religion. One patient on Sherbourne told us they were unable to see a Church of England minister and 1 patient on Beechwood said they needed more culturally appropriate food. The Trust advised there was a referral process in place to enable patients to access support with their religion or spiritual beliefs.

Staff treated most patients as individuals, considering any relevant protected equality characteristics. On Edgwick ward we reviewed 2 care records and saw evidence of individualised support, including staff highlighting the needs of a patient with autism. One patient on Swanswell ward and 1 on Spencer ward told us how staff supported them with a specific need related to protected equality characteristics. Swanswell ward manager told us about the ‘culture of care’ project which included celebrating different cultures. The ward manager told us this had reduced incidents of racial abuse from patients to other patients and staff. Staff were able to describe how they supported patients to meet their religious needs, for example, by supporting patients’ attendance at church or by meeting specific dietary needs, including the provision of Halal food.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Patients were supported to maintain relationships and networks that were important to them. Most patients had access to their friends and family while they were using the service.

We asked 11 patients if they were supported to maintain relationships with family and friends. Ten answered positively but 1 patient told us they were not able to speak to their children. We spoke with 3 carers of patients at the service and asked them if their relative was able to keep in contact with family and friends, all 3 answered yes. On Swanswell ward patients were able to use the therapy kitchen as a space to meet visiting friends and family. Staff would book a room off the ward if children were visiting. All patients were able to have their own phones, unless a specific risk was identified. Staff created contact cards for carers so they could contact the ward easily. On Edgwick ward the OT and psychologist implemented changes to the room used for ward rounds to make it more welcoming for patients and families, these changes included sofas and a big tv screen to enable families to join remotely. On Beechwood ward we observed an MDT meeting where 14 patients were reviewed. We saw evidence of staff ensuring patients were able to see their friends and family, including specific support for a patient who suffered a family bereavement and discussions about how staff could support both the patient and their family. The Trust set up a partnership with an animal rescue charity to provide a pet support programme to help patients who may be struggling to care for their pets whilst in hospital.

Patients had access to activities and the local community to promote and support their independence, health and wellbeing. We asked 10 patients if they were able to access the community and participate in activities. All answered positively and told us about accessing leave in the community to get their nails done, visit nature reserves and go for walks. Patients told us about participating in ward based activities, for example, cooking sessions, table tennis, table football, art and craft activities and going to the gym. We spoke with 3 carers of patients at the service and asked them if their relative was able to get involved with activities, 2 said yes, the other did not know. All wards had activity coordinators. We observed the activity coordinator on Quinton (Westwood) ward getting ready to take a patient out to the local nature reserve. The activity coordinator was enthusiastic and supportive towards the patient. We spoke with the activity coordinator on Beechwood ward, they talked through how they scheduled various activities and displayed these in communal areas. They said they were well supported by the rest of the team to ensure activities took place.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff were usually alert to patients’ needs and took time to observe, communicate and engage patients in discussions about their immediate needs. Staff spoke to us about how they would support patients when in distress. Staff on Edgwick ward told us they responded to patients in distress by taking them to the quiet room, giving them a safe space to speak, listening to them and trying to address the issue. Another member of staff on Edgwick ward told us how they supported a patient who tied a ligature, took them to the quiet room to de-escalate and offered PRN (as required medication). Staff on Swanswell ward described how they would offer individualisedsupport to any patient in distress, take them away from the situation, to the garden or quiet room, and use de-escalation techniques to support them to feel calmer. On Hearsall ward we observed the ward manager handing out ice pops during a hot day. The Hearsall ward office door was left open when staff were in there. The manager advised this was to reduce patients’ frustration when requesting support from staff. During our visit we observed patients coming to the door and asking for support with a mostly positive response. However, we also observed staff being dismissive of a patient’s request to go to the shop, the manager intervened and ensured staff supported the patient. On Quinton (Westwood ward) we observed staff responding promptly and with kindness to distressed patients. We also observed staff responding quickly to patients’ ad hoc requests, these included phone calls with relatives, requests for PRN and requests for vapes. However, 3 patients told us staff were not always responsive to their immediate needs, including when they were experiencing pain.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Patients received safe, effective and person-centred care as the Trust recognised and met the wellbeing needs of most staff. These included the necessary resources and facilities for safe working, such as regular breaks and rest areas. We spoke with 15 staff and 13 told us they felt supported and were able to take breaks. Two staff said they were not always able to take breaks and voiced concerns about morale on their wards. We also raised concerns about the inadequate staff toilet facilities on Sherbourne ward.

Patients’ experience of a service was driven by a culture that normalised good wellbeing through inclusivity, active listening, and open conversations. This enabled staff to do their job well and to be well. Staff told us they received regular supervision and their managers were approachable. Staff spoke about support provided by the psychology team, particularly following upsetting incidents. Beechwood ward manager told us about monthly development days where the team would look at what wasn’t working and how could they make it work. They said staff bring ideas all the time, through supervisions and meetings. One staff brought the idea of group exercise for patients and staff on the ward, now this happens weekly (which we observed). The ward manager talked to us about supporting staff who were on long term absences, how they would check with them to make sure they were ok and refer for additional support, for example, occupational health, if needed. Swanswell ward manager talked about the team being well supported following a serious incident and access to TRIM (Trauma Risk Incident Management) for all staff. Spencer ward manager told us they provided regular team meetings, encouraged staff to raise concerns in safety huddles and ensured all staff had breaks scheduled. A senior leader hosted monthly webinars that staff could drop into and ask any questions. At these webinars staff usually asked about staffing issues and assaults by patients on staff. The senior leader told us they checked staff were supported following incidents of assault and described how they supported a member of staff to report an assault to the police.