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

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness. They respected patients’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of patients and supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition.

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 service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Patients spoke positively about their interactions with staff, frequently highlighting their warmth, empathy, and encouragement. Many patients said they felt heard and supported in a calm and reassuring setting. Most reported that they had a clear understanding of their medication and care plans and felt that staff took time to explain information in a way that was clear and easy to follow.

Staff told us that, despite the pressures they faced, they prioritised patients’ needs and treated people with respect, understanding, and compassion, with a strong desire to deliver the best possible care. However, some staff expressed frustration at not always being able to deliver the high standards of care they aspired to, due to the challenging environment they were working within, particularly in relation to staffing shortages and the associated impact on service delivery.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients. For example, all information about patients was stored on an electronic patient record. This record could only be accessed by entering a personal username and password.

The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

We saw examples of how the service sought to treat people as individuals and make reasonable adjustments to meet diverse needs. Interpreting and translation services were available, including translated patient letters and access to interpreters. Staff acknowledged particular challenges in supporting deaf patients, including difficulties with the availability of sign language interpreters, and told us they were working with external partners to reduce cancelled appointments and improve access.

Where patients were unable to attend clinic appointments, including those who were housebound or had significant physical disabilities, staff provided support through home visits.

Staff also demonstrated awareness of unmet needs within specific groups. They recognised challenges in engaging with some patients from specific communities and described signposting to specialist external organisations where culturally specific support was available.

We heard that some autistic patients wanted the service to be better adapted to their needs, including options for non‑verbal communication such as text or email. Staff acknowledged that current systems were not always robust in this regard and told us that the trust’s autism lead was actively reviewing how services could be made more accessible. Staff also highlighted ongoing work within the autism pathway, noting a significant cohort of patients with co‑morbid conditions such as autism and emotionally unstable personality disorder.

The service ensured that patients had access to information about treatments, local services, and how to raise concerns. Posters in waiting areas highlighted this information.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff supported patients to make choices and decisions about their care, we heard how patients and where appropriate, family members or carers were actively involved in the formulation and review of care plans. Patients were encouraged to openly discuss their needs and preferences and to contribute meaningfully to decisions about how their care and support were planned and delivered.

The service referred and signposted individuals to advocacy services when required, with posters displayed in the waiting areas providing clear information about the advocacy support available to patients.

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People open to the service were able to access support through the CMHT duty line during normal working hours, with out‑of‑hours support available via NHS 111 or the Home Treatment Team (HTT). Duty workers were able to respond promptly to requests for assistance, and patients requiring urgent support could be referred to the crisis team.

However, CMHT staff described challenges in accessing timely crisis team support, including delays in referrals being accepted and cases being returned to the CMHT. As a result, staff reported that they were at times providing what they considered to be crisis-level support themselves, implementing measures to keep patients safe and supported when crisis team involvement was not available.

We also heard how the service responded flexibly to people’s immediate needs, including staff visiting patients at home when attending clinic appointments was not practical or appropriate, for example due to mobility difficulties.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Most staff spoke positively about their roles and demonstrated a commitment to their work. However, they also identified several ongoing pressures, including staffing levels, workload demands, and the impact of these factors on team morale. Some staff felt that collaboration between teams could be improved. Despite these challenges, staff appeared dedicated to delivering care and support to patients and to making a positive difference to people’s lives.

The service actively promoted staff wellbeing by recognising individual health needs and putting appropriate reasonable adjustments in place. We heard from staff experiencing mental health difficulties and physical health needs, they reported they were supported through occupational health involvement, stress risk assessments and guidance from the human resources department. Flexible working arrangements were agreed, allowing later start times and earlier finishes to support attendance and reduce stress. Other staff with physical health conditions were provided with suitable adjustments, including amended shift patterns to better meet their needs. In addition, one staff member was supported with specialist equipment, including a sit–stand desk, to help manage an ongoing back condition.

Staff spoke positively about a range of measures that supported their wellbeing. These included access to day‑to‑day guidance from managers and opportunities to connect with colleagues through peer networks. Staff also described “listening clinics”, which brought together different professional groups in a space without senior managers present, enabling them to share views and raise concerns openly.

The service had also organised staff away days, which were reported to have been well received, with plans in place to offer further events. Where individual wellbeing needs were identified, staff were supported through the use of wellbeing plans and reasonable adjustments to help them remain well at work. In addition, staff were aware of therapeutic support options available through the Trust, including structured psychological support and access to specialist input following particularly challenging or traumatic incidents.

Staff highlighted that the Trust offered a range of other wellbeing initiatives; however, these were generally viewed as corporate initiatives rather than being embedded within the service itself.

Of the 25 staff we spoke with, the majority reported feeling well supported by their colleagues. Views were mixed regarding the level of support provided by team managers, and there was a more general perception of limited support from senior leadership. Overall, staff described greater satisfaction and support within their immediate teams than within the wider service, including upper management.