- SERVICE PROVIDER
Coventry and Warwickshire Partnership NHS Trust
This is an organisation that runs the health and social care services we inspect
Assessment report published 15 July 2026
Contents
Ratings - Community-based mental health services for adults of working age
Our view of the service
We completed an assessment of Coventry and Warwickshire Partnership NHS Trust and assessed 1 assessment group: Community-based mental health services for adults of working age.
The assessment followed CQC’s Single Assessment Framework (SAF) and considered all quality statements under each key question.
Onsite assessment activity took place between 17 and 19 March 2026. Offsite assessment activity took place on 24 March 2026, when we gathered feedback from patients and carers via telephone.
We spoke with 25 members of staff and 16 patients during the assessment.
This was a short-notice announced assessment, which means the service was told 24-hours in advance that an assessment was going to be starting beforehand.
Community mental health services for adults of working age operated from multiple locations across Coventry and Warwickshire.
During this assessment, we visited 5 of these teams, as follows:
North Warwickshire Community Mental Health Team Avenue House, Manor Court Avenue, Nuneaton, CV11 5HX
Coventry Community Mental Health Team Swanswell Point, 2 Stoney Stanton Rd, Coventry, CV1 4FS
South Warwickshire Community Mental Health Team St Mary's Lodge 12 St. Marys Road, Leamington Spa, CV31 1JN
Coventry Early Intervention Service Swanswell Point, 2 Stoney Stanton Rd, Coventry, CV1 4FS
South Warwickshire Early Intervention Service 24 Cape Rd, Warwick CV34 4JP
During this assessment we rated the service as requires improvement.
The service had previously been assessed by CQC in April 2016. At that inspection, the overall rating was requires improvement. The key questions safe and effective were rated requires improvement. Key questions caring, responsive and well-led were rated as good. At the 2016 assessment we identified breaches and issued requirement notices for regulation 12 safe care and treatment and regulation 17 Good governance. For regulation 12 this was in relation to ensuring there was emergency equipment on site for use in emergencies and ensuring Ministry of Justice and Community Treatment Order conditions were included in care plans. The breach of regulation 17 related to Ministry of Justice and Mental Health Act records and reports not being accessible to all staff. As part of this assessment, we checked to see that concerns at the previous inspection had been addressed. We found during this assessment that each team now had appropriate and adequately maintained emergency equipment available, including emergency grab bags and defibrillators. We reviewed whether Ministry of Justice and Community Treatment Order conditions were included in care plans, and whether Mental Health Act records were compliant and accessible. We found all required information was clearly documented and accessible.
During this during this inspection, we found breaches of 4 regulations. These were person centre-care (regulation 9), safe care and treatment (regulation 12), good governance (regulation 17) and staffing (regulation 18). The trust had not ensured there were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, competent, skilled and experienced staff to make sure that they could meet people's care and treatment needs. Staff did not always follow policies and procedures about managing medicines. The care and treatment of patients did not always meet their needs. Governance processes did not always operate effectively. However, we found that staff treated patients with compassion and kindness. Staff provided a range of treatment and care for patients based on national guidance and best practice. The Trust had effective monitoring systems in place to monitor and respond to safeguarding alerts.
We asked the trust for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
Mental Health Act
Mental Health Act training compliance was 94.4% for Level 1 and 89.2% for Level 2 across the service. Some of the patients supported by the teams were subject to Ministry of Justice (MoJ) restrictions or Community Treatment Orders (CTOs). These patients were supported and monitored by a designated care coordinator, typically a CPN, within the CMHT. The documentation relating to these orders, including the associated conditions, was appropriately completed, included in care plans, and readily accessible. As well as discussing the specific conditions and requirements attached to these orders, we saw evidence that patients were provided with information about their rights under the Mental Health Act 1983, in line with Section 132., This section requires patients to be informed of their legal rights under the Act, including access to advocacy and the right to appeal.
Mental Capacity Act
Across the teams, Mental Capacity Act training compliance was 93.8% for Level 1 and 90.2% for Level 2. The assessment and recording of mental capacity appeared to be applied inconsistently across the care records reviewed. In some instances, records clearly stated whether patients were assessed as lacking capacity or deemed to possess capacity in relation to specific areas or decisions, supported by completed Mental Capacity Assessments. In other records, it was stated that a patient lacked or possessed capacity in relation to a specific decision; however, the underlying Mental Capacity Assessment to evidence this conclusion was not present. In some records reviewed, it was stated that a patient had capacity, but it was not clear in relation to which specific decision(s) this assessment applied. In other records, there was no reference to the patient’s mental capacity at all.
People's experience of this service
We spoke with 16 patients across the service about their experiences of care.
Most patients we spoke to gave positive feedback about the service. Staff were consistently described as kind, compassionate, helpful, friendly, and motivating. Patients felt listened to and supported in a safe and calm environment. Many patients highlighted the value of seeing the same allocated staff member, which helped build trust and provided continuity of care. Several patients praised their key workers for being understanding and creating a space where they felt comfortable.
Most patients reported understanding their medication, including its purpose and potential side effects, with explanations provided by doctors. The service was generally considered easy to contact, with out-of-hours support available. However, a small number of patients reported difficulty reaching staff, delays when trying to speak with their care coordinator, or not being informed when staff were off sick.
Patient feedback regarding waiting times was variable. Some patients reported being seen quickly after referral, while others experienced long waits for certain treatments, such as psychology input or specific types of therapy. Patients reported receiving monthly phone reviews while on waiting lists.
Overall, patients valued the person-centred approach, flexibility, and continuity of care offered by the service.