Coventry and Warwickshire Partnership 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

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. At our last assessment we rated responsive as good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. The design, layout, and furnishings of the wards supported patients’ treatment, privacy and dignity. The service met the needs of all patients – including those with a protected characteristic. Staff helped patients with communication, advocacy and cultural and spiritual support. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the result.

However, staff did not always involve patients and their families in planning their care and did not always support patients to plan their future care.

This service scored 68 (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 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

There was limited evidence of how staff were meeting patients’ specific needs in most care plans reviewed. We identified a lack of patient and carer involvement in patients’ care. Across Beechwood, Spencer, Sherbourne and Edgwick wards we found no evidence of staff involving patients or their families in 6 care records. On Sherbourne ward we reviewed a care record for 1 patient and there was no evidence of staff involving the patient or their family in planning their care. The care plan was not person centred or holistic. There was limited evidence of staff meeting regularly with the patient to discuss their care. We asked 5 patients if they were involved in their care, 2 said they were not (1 on Beechwood and 1 on Spencer). We spoke with 3 carers of patients at the service and asked them if staff understood their relative’s needs and provided care in a way they liked, 2 said yes and 1 said they did not think so.

However, 3 patients said they were involved in their care. One patient on Beechwood and 1 on Quinton (Westwood) said they were involved in ward rounds to discuss their care. A patient on Spencer ward told us staff involved them in discharge planning. On Beechwood ward we observed an MDT meeting where 14 patients were reviewed. The team put the patient at the heart of their discussion, and included their family, when the patient consented to this. On Beechwood ward we observed a best interests meeting. Staff were person centred and knew what the patient and their family needed. Staff demonstrated cultural awareness of what would be best for the patient and their family. Following our on-site inspection, the Trust conducted an audit of care records and reported an improvement in collaborative working with patients by coproducing and involving them in their care plans. They reported a compliance rate of 91% for staff involving patients in a review of their care plans. They advised work was still needed to ensure staff involved families, with a compliance rate of 57% for staff asking patients who else they would like involved in their care.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

Patients received care and treatment from services that understood the diverse health and social care needs of their local communities. We spoke with the director of operations who told us they recruited staff from communities with similar backgrounds to patients. They told us a chaplain and Imam visited the wards regularly. They told us the Trust improved access to interpreters to ensure they were able to see patients and families on the wards. They ensured patients had access to welcoming spaces to see their families.

On Beechwood ward we observed an MDT meeting. We saw evidence of the team discussing an autistic patient, reasonable adjustments were discussed, and the patient was referred for an ASD assessment. On Edgwick ward 4 of the 5 patients had a diagnosis of ASD. Staff told us these patients were referred for additional support to enable them to access the service and an expert by experience (a person with lived experience) visited the ward to help staff understand how to support these patients. Sherbourne ward manager told us about staff using sensory equipment to support a patient with autism. Beechwood ward manager told us about sourcing a specialised bed for a patient to enable them to access the service. They told us about a ‘calm down’ box with sensory items for patients and that welcome packs were available in easy read formats. The Trust reported a reduction in length of stay on their adult mental health inpatient wards, a reduction in patients placed in out of area acute beds and a reduction in delayed discharges.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People who used the service, their family, friends, and carers were provided with information that was accessible, safe and secure and supported their rights and choices. We reviewed patient and carer welcome packs on Beechwood ward. These packs gave an overview of ward. The packs included details with photos of the carers champion and ward manager. There was information on consent and details on how to raise concerns. There were photographs and descriptions of the rooms and facilities on the ward. The packs included a glossary of terms used with a description, for example, informal patient, advocate. We spoke with 3 carers of patients at the service and asked them if they were provided with information about the service, 2 said yes and 1 said no.

Patients’ individual needs to have information in an accessible way were identified, recorded, highlighted and shared. Staff told us they worked with SaLTs to assess and meet patients’ communication needs.

Patients could expect information to be tailored to individual needs. This included making reasonable adjustments for disabled people and interpreting and translation for people who did not speak English as a first language. We saw information leaflets were available in different languages, including Polish and Urdu. Swanswell ward manager said staff used an online translator to help them communicate and offer reassurance to the patient’s family.

However, not all patients who had difficulty with reading, writing or using digital services were supported with accessible information. We spoke with a patient on Swanswell ward who told us staff provided them with information they could not read, due to a visual impairment.

We scored the service as 3. 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. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The Trust reported receiving 54 complaints between 1 October 2024 and 31 March 2025. Hearsall ward reported the highest number with 15. The Trust reported 9 complaint investigations were closed between 1 October 2024 and 31 March 2025. Of these 9, 3 were upheld, 3 were not upheld and 3 were withdrawn or abandoned. No complaints were referred to the ombudsman.The Trust reported 14 compliments were received between 1 October 2024 and 31 March 2025.

Patients knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support including how to raise any concerns or issues. We asked 8 patients if they knew how to raise concerns, 6 told us they did and were listened to. Two patients said they raised concerns but were not listened to. We saw ‘you said, we did’ displays on wards. On Beechwood ward the ‘you said, we did, display evidenced staff taking action to introduce a walking group after this was requested by patients. On Swanswell ward patients raised concerns about not knowing when washing machines were available so a rota system was introduced, which patients said was better. On Edgwick ward (female PICU) patients requested more female staff at night, so the ward manager implemented a new process of only requesting female staff when shifts needed covering. On Spencer ward the manager escalated patients’ concerns about food to the facilities team. Patients were able to attend weekly community meetings and share any concerns. We spoke with 3 carers of patients at the service and asked them if they knew who to speak to if they had concerns, 2 said no and 1 said yes. We asked if they tried to raise concerns, 1 said they had but were unable to contact the person they were told to speak to. Another carer told us everything they have asked about has been sorted out or there was a plan to sort out.

Patients were kept informed about how their feedback was acted on. Where improvements were required as a result, people had the opportunity to be involved in shaping the solutions. A senior leader shared that a patient had very different experiences on 2 wards. They supported this patient to present their experiences to the board. The manager of the ward where the patient had a poor experience made a video thanking the patient for sharing their experience, apologising for the issues and explaining what they had done to make improvements. Hearsall ward team implemented a quality improvement (QI) initiative following concerns raised by patients that they didn’t understand the jargon and acronyms used in ward rounds. The QI initiative was ‘Post-ward round discussions’ and involved nurses talking to patients after their ward round and answering any queries. Following the introduction of this, patients reported their understanding improved.

Learning from complaints and concerns was seen as an opportunity for improvement. Managers and staff shared examples of learning from complaints, including the manager on Beechwood ward reminding patients not to lend their belongings to other patients, following concerns raised by family about their relative giving an electronic device to another patient. Sherbourne ward manager told us about ensuring staff spoke with patients’ families at the earliest opportunity to find out what is important to them following concerns that a patient wasn’t eating and upon taking to their family staff discovered they only liked particular food. Staff were then able to provide the food they liked.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Patients could expect their care, treatment and support to be accessible, timely and in line with best practice, quality standards and legal requirements, including those on equality and human rights. This included making reasonable adjustments for disabled people, addressing communication barriers and having accessible premises. The Trust advised inpatient admissions did not have an inclusion and exclusion criteria in policy, with the exception for under 18yrs old. The admissions process was inclusive and did not discriminate outside of the usual checks completed by the bed management team, such as the persons medical fitness or the appropriate admission setting, for example, a PICU requirement. Wards were fully accessible for patients with limited mobility.

We spoke with the Trust Recovery Lead who told us about involving Warwickshire Pride in their work. They also made changes to training to ensure it was neuro inclusive.

Swanswell ward manager told us when patients were admitted from different communities, they did not make assumptions and had options available to meet patients’ needs. These included access to a faith room, requesting religious texts and accommodating bathing and cleansing rituals. They told us about 1 patient observing Ramadan, staff contacted housekeeping to ensure food was provided at times to fit around the patients’ fasting regime. Staff also supported the patients’ family to bring food in and pray with the patient.

Beechwood ward manager told us the Trust equality and diversity team supported staff to understand and meet the diverse needs of patients on the ward. This included accessing interpreters and religious leaders. They described how a religious leader supported a patient following a bereavement.

However, on Swanswell ward there were not enough rooms for patients to participate in therapies and meetings. We observed staff trying unsuccessfully to find an available room to carry out an activity with a patient. The ward manager advised there were plans to reduce the number of bedrooms and convert an old bathroom to a self-soothing space. The old bedrooms would be converted into additional therapy/activity rooms.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Patients’ care, treatment and support promoted equality, removed barriers or delays and protected their rights. We spoke with the operations director who told us that they were focused on identifying discrimination and inequality and tackling it. They described an example on Hearsall ward, where patients were subjected to racial abuse and threats by other patients. One of the patients being abusive was informal (not detained) they were assessed by the MDT and the decision was made that it was safe to discharge them from the service. They told us they made sure that people did not think they had to “make do” with what was offered, and the service could make changes to meet their needs, We spoke with a senior leader who told us they completed a thematic review of seclusion to identify if any discriminatory practices were evident, but did not find any evidence and were assured seclusion wasn’t being used more for particular groups of people. Beechwood ward manager told us they promoted mutual expectations with patients, which focused on being respectful and understanding that everyone was different. Leaders spoke to us about implementing the Patient and Carer Race Equality Framework (PCREF) and how they were using this to promote a message of zero tolerance towards racial abuse.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Patients were not always supported to make informed choices about their care and plan their future care. Leaders and staff told us discharge planning started on admission. We looked for evidence of discharge planning in 6 care records across all wards. Staff had not recorded plans or discussions for discharge in 3 records. We spoke with 3 patients about discharge plans, 2 told us staff had not spoken to them about this. However, 3 records reviewed included discharge plans and evidence of staff discussing discharge in ward rounds. On Edgwick ward the care plan reviewed also evidenced involvement of the patient’s community team and family in discharge planning. A patient on Edgwick ward told us staff were helping them plan their discharge and find their next placement. We observed a best interests meeting on Beechwood ward which was held with input from social care services to help plan the patient’s discharge from the ward.