Coventry and Warwickshire Partnership NHS Trust

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

This means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

Staff assessed the physical and mental health of all patients on admission. Staff provided a range of treatment and care for patients based on national guidance and best practice. The ward team included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of patients on the ward. Staff from different disciplines worked together as a team to benefit patients. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health Act Code of Practice and fulfilled these well.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The evidence showed a good standard. This service maximises the effectiveness of people’s care and treatment by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Staff conducted a comprehensive assessment of patients’ physical and mental health on admission, or shortly afterwards. We reviewed 10 patient records. Most records contained risk assessments that were relevant to the individual, including for pressure ulcers, malnutrition and falls. Staff completed food and fluid charts. However, these charts did not include guidance on recommended dietary and fluid intake.

On Pembleton ward, patients who had “Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation” (DNACPR) agreements in place were not indicated on the main whiteboard in the office. This meant that staff may not be fully aware of the status of all the patients on the ward.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health Act Code of Practice and fulfilled these well

Staff provided a range of care and treatment interventions suitable for the patient group. The interventions were those recommended by, and were delivered in line with, guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

The team included or had access to a full range of specialists required to meet the needs of patients in the service. As well as doctors and nurses, the service had occupational therapists, clinical psychologists, social workers, pharmacists, speech and language therapists, dieticians, physiotherapists and peer support workers.

Staff ensured that patients had good access to physical healthcare, including access to specialists when needed.

Psychology teams ran groups on the ward such as low intensity therapies such a Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), anxiety and depression and self-compassion groups.

We spoke with a dietitian who had been newly recruited to the service. They informed us that staff complete food and fluid charts without clinical indication if they have concerns about intake.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. Staff worked effectively across teams and services to support people. However, handover meetings were only scheduled to last for ten minutes. This meant that staff had insufficient time to discuss patients in detail.

Staff held regular and effective multidisciplinary meetings. The teams had effective working relationships with teams outside the organisation, such as, community mental health teams and the local authority and general practitioners (GPs).

However, handovers did not always provide sufficient time to staff to discuss patients in detail. Each ward allocated ten minutes for handover meetings. Staff reported that they did not feel this was sufficient, given that wards had between 12-20 patients. We observed a handover on Ferndale ward as part of the assessment. The handover was of good quality; however, healthcare assistants had to leave the handover to relieve night staff due to the handover taking longer than the allocated 10 minutes. This meant not all staff had received a thorough handover of all 20 patients before going onto the ward to provide care. Leaders have recognised that this is a concern. Work was underway to implement a pilot to change shift patterns which will increase the handover time to 30 minutes.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

We saw that activities promoted physical exercise to suit the patients’ abilities. Staff also supported patients to cook healthy meals.

Staff supported patients to live healthier lives. For example, providing balanced meals. Due to their illness, some patients needed specific support to meet their nutritional needs. Staff completed food and fluid charts for the multi-disciplinary team (MDT) to review. Patients with swallowing difficulties were provided with different forms of food to allow them to eat independently and safely.

The evidence showed a good standard in some areas. The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. The service collected patient feedback. However, the service did not have a structured approach to measuring patients’ outcomes.

The service used monitoring tools such as malnutrition risk assessments, swallowing and choking risk assessments, and pressure ulcer risk assessments. However, the service did not have a structured approach to measuring patients’ outcomes.

The service used patient-led ‘I Want Great Care’ feedback forms as a way of monitoring patients’ experiences. Between April 2025 and March 2026, 251 reviews of Stanley ward gave 99% of positive feedback and 85 reviews of Pembleton ward gave 95.3% positive feedback. 175 reviews of Ferndale gave 93.64% positive feedback. The response rate was lower on the Woodloes Unit, with only 12 responses. However, these responses were positive.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. We tell people about their rights around consent and respect these when we deliver person-centred care and treatment. However, staff did on always ensure that patients gave their consent to the using digital health monitoring equipment in their bedrooms.

Staff assessed patients capacity to consent to admission and treatment and admission. Staff updated assessments of mental capacity at each multidisciplinary team meeting.

Staff ensured that appropriate certification was completed to authorise treatment for patient detained under the Mental Health Act who were not consenting, or did not have capacity to consent, to treatment. Patients were asked for consent for personal care, and for their families to be involved in their care.

However, staff did on always ensure that patients gave their consent to the using digital health monitoring equipment in their bedrooms. We reviewed records of 3 patients on Stanley ward, where a digital health monitoring system was used. Two of these lacked any information around consent to use of this, the other only had a brief sentence. This meant that we were not assured that all patients were involved in and consented to the use of digital health monitoring in their bedrooms, or that this was regularly reviewed. We were told that this was reviewed in multidisciplinary team meetings, however this was not noted within patient records.