Black Country Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust

Updated 18 May 2023

Black Country Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust was formerly called Black Country Partnership NHS Foundation Trust. It changed its name in April 2020 when it acquired the mental health services previously run by Dudley and Walsall Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust, which is now Dudley Integrated Health and Care NHS Trust.

Ratings of services previously run by a trust acquired by another do not carry over to the new trust. This report includes ratings for the three mental health services of the newly formed trust that we inspected this time, and for mental health and community health services run by this trust under its previous name.

We have not taken into account previous ratings for mental health services formerly run by the Dudley and Walsall trust. Information about those services is available on our website pages for that trust under its new name (cqc.org.uk/ provider/RYK/reports).

Our normal practice following an acquisition would be to inspect all services run by the enlarged trust. However, our usual inspection work has been curtailed by the COVID-19 pandemic, so we inspected only those services where we had cause for concern.

We inspected the overall management of the trust and three mental health services:

• Acute wards for adults of working age and psychiatric intensive care units

• Mental health crisis services and health-based places of safety

• Wards for older people with mental health problems

We rated the trust overall and all three mental health services as good. In rating the trust we took into account previous ratings for services not inspected this time. We rated the trust as good because:

• The trust was formed in April 2020 at the start of the Covid 19 pandemic and during the implementation of the lockdown measures initiated by the Government. We noted how much time the board had invested in creating the new organisation during the Covid-19 pandemic.
• The trust board was diverse. Non-executive directors represented different communities and the executive directors presented an effective mix of members from diverse backgrounds and with a wide range of skills and experience. A number of the non-executive directors had a NHS or local authority background which supported good discussions at trust board. The trust was highlighted by a national healthcare journal for having the highest share of black, Asian and minority ethnic very senior managers.
• The clinical strategy identified key priority areas of focus which were linked to the trust’s vision.
• Governance processes had been implemented and operated effectively across the organisation to ensure that performance and risk were managed well. There were clear responsibilities, roles and systems of accountability to support good governance and management. There was a positive and open culture across the trust. Staff told us they felt happy and enjoyed their work. There was good staff morale in services. Staff felt respected, supported, and valued and we heard how well the trust supported staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. Leaders modelled positive behaviours, and development of staff was encouraged. There was an extensive wellbeing offer available to staff, including the wellbeing hub offering mental health support, flexible working, and aids on keeping well.
• There had been good engagement with external stakeholders. The trust had key roles in the development of the local health and social care system working and collaborated with care providers to improve mental health services. The trust engaged with local people who used services in the design of new buildings.
• The trust had developed a triumvirate management structure across its divisions that was supporting the development and focus on local services. Whilst their structure was new there was good work in developing local governance around quality and safety. A triumvirate approach brings together three managers, including operational, clinical, and managerial, to support change to local areas.
• The trust had made firm commitments to equality and inclusions. The Cultural Ambassadors programme collected equality data that fed into the trusts plans for equality and inclusions. The staff networks for black and ethnic minorities, disability, and LGBTQ+ were actively supported and had been awarded the Disability Confident Award.
• Infection prevention and control (IPC) was well managed and monitored. Services were responsive and dealt with frequent changes in IPC requirements during the pandemic.
• Staff completed and regularly updated environmental risk assessments of all wards areas and removed or reduced the majority of the risks they identified, an exception being in the wards for older people with mental health problems. Staff followed procedures to minimise risks where they could not easily observe patients.
• Patient involvement in planning care was now in place and the voice of the patient in changes to services had been considered.
• Patients we spoke to in mental health wards for adults said that staff treated them with respect and dignity. Key workers and occupational therapists were highly praised. Relatives were similar in praise to staff in older people’s wards and thought their family received good care. Relatives and carers understood the need for tighter restrictions during the pandemic. However, the need for improvements were highlighted in the following areas; to be provided with more information about medication and treatment, communication between wards and carers could be improved, and access to care and support slowed the process of discharge.
• There was a good working relationship between the Mental Health Act (MHA) administration team and the wards, community teams and the executive team. This had continued during the pandemic. The MHA team provided regular reports to the executive team to provide assurance that the MHA was appropriately applied within the trust.
• Services treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the results. Managers shared the outcome of complaints with their ward teams.
• The trust board, heads of departments and senior leaders had access to the information they needed to manage risk, issues and performance across the trust. Staff had easy access to clinical information and were maintaining good quality clinical records.

However:

• In two of the core services inspected, the environment had not been well maintained. These were across mental health wards for adults of working age and for older people. Maintenance teams had not undertaken repairs in a timely way. However, all areas used by patients were clean. Some patients continued to share bedroom spaces in dormitories. However the trust had clear and timely plans to eliminate dormitories.
• There were not always sufficient alarms for staff working in the wards for older people. This meant staff could not get help quickly if there was an emergency.
• The seclusion room at the Macarthur Centre psychiatric intensive care unit was poorly furnished and the toilet and washing facilities needed updating. It did not meet the requirement of the Code of Practice
• Patients on the acute wards for adults of working age did not have sufficient access to psychology services.

How we carried out the inspection

During the inspection, our inspection teams carried out the following activities across 11 wards in the three core services inspected:

• reviewed 49 care records

• reviewed 44 medication records

• interviewed 52 staff and 10 managers

• interviewed 14 patients

• spoke with 13 family members or carers of patients

• checked 14 clinic rooms

• attended 7 meetings

During our well-led inspection, we spoke with 50 senior leaders of the organisation and looked at a range of policies, procedures and other governance documents relating to the running of the trust.

You can find further information about how we carry out our inspections on our website: www.cqc.org.uk/what-we-do/how-we-do-our-job/what-we-do-inspection.

What people who use the service say

Patients we talked to that used the wards for adults of working age told us that they were cared for in a dignified and caring manner. They told us that staff treated them with respect and tried to include them in their care where possible. Patients spoke highly of their key workers and occupational therapists on the wards. Some patients told us that they were not given enough information about their medication or treatment, and some patients were not given a copy of their care plan.

Relatives and carers of people who had used the wards for older adult felt that their loved one was receiving good care from the hospital. They said that nurses should have more help and that they earned every penny.

Most of the carers we spoke to stated that communication was a particular problem between the ward and relatives and carers. Access to follow on care and support appeared to slow down patient’s discharge.

Relatives and carers said although Covid restrictions on the wards felt quite tight it appeared to have prevented Covid in the hospitals.

Due to concerns about the pandemic and possibility of cross infection inspectors were not able to accompany staff on community visits and therefore were unable to speak to patients who were been looked after by the crisis teams.

Updated 16 March 2026

We completed an assessment of Black Country Healthcare NHS Foundation Trustand assessed 1 assessment group: Acute wards for adults of working age and psychiatric intensive care units.

The assessment followed CQC’s Single Assessment Framework (SAF) and considered all quality statements under each key question.

Onsite assessment activity took place on 9th, 10th and 11th June 2026.

Offsite assessment activity was conducted between 17th and 24th June 2026. During this period, feedback was gathered from additional staff members through online interviews, and patients’ family members and carers were contacted by telephone to obtain their views about the service provided.

We spoke with 51 members of staff and 23 patients during the assessment.

This was an unannounced assessment, which means the service was not told an assessment was going to be starting beforehand.

Acute wards for adults of working age and psychiatric intensive care units operated from 5 locations across West Bromwich, Wolverhampton, Walsall and Dudley. During this assessment, we visited all 5 of these sites, as follows:

MacArthur Centre PICU

Heath Lane Hospital, Heath Lane, West Bromwich, B712BG

Penn Hospital (Brook and Dale ward)

Penn Road, Penn, Wolverhampton, WV4 5HN

Hallam Street Hospital (Abbey, Friar and Charlemont ward)

Hallam Street, West Bromwich, B71 4NH

Dorothy Pattison Hospital (Ambleside and Langdale ward)

Alumwell Close, Walsall, WS2 9XH

Bushey Fields Hospital (Clent, Clee and Kinver ward)

Bushey Fields Road, Russell’s Hall, Dudley, DY1 2LZ

With the exception of Kinver ward at Bushey Fields Hospital and Charlemont ward at Hallam Street Hospital, we visited all wards across all sites during this inspection. Although these 2 wards were not visited, we spoke with staff from both wards as part of our off-site inspection activity through virtual staff focus groups.

The service was last assessed by CQC in October 2025. During that assessment, only Hallam Street Hospital was visited. The service was rated Requires Improvement overall, with Safe, Effective and Well-led rated Requires Improvement, and Caring and Responsive rated Good. At that assessment, breaches of Regulations 9, 12, 15, 17 and 18 were identified due to concerns including person-centred care planning, risk assessment and incident management, hygiene and premises maintenance, oversight of staff training, and training and supervision compliance. The provider submitted an action plan to address these concerns.

This assessment found improvements in several areas. Hygiene standards had improved, environmental maintenance issues identified previously had been addressed, and staff had good access to mandatory and specialist training. Oversight of training compliance had also improved. As a result, the provider had addressed the specific concerns that led to breaches of Regulations 15, 17 and 18 at the previous assessment.

However, breaches of Regulations 9 and 12 remained. Care plans and risk assessments continued to lack sufficient person-centred detail, physical health care plans did not always provide staff with the information needed to support patients safely, incidents were not consistently followed up appropriately, and medicines were not always managed safely. We also identified different concerns relating to safeguarding practice and fire safety, resulting in a breach of Regulation 13 and a new breach of Regulation 15. In addition, governance systems were not consistently effective in identifying, escalating, monitoring and addressing risks, resulting in a breach of Regulation 17 on different grounds to those identified at the previous assessment.

Despite these concerns, wards were clean and well maintained, staff and patients described caring and compassionate interactions, Mental Capacity Act and Mental Health Act processes were generally well managed, and multidisciplinary working was effective.

Following this assessment, the service remained rated Requires Improvement overall, and we requested a further action plan to address the concerns identified.

Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Compliance

Mental Health Act

Mental Health Act training compliance was 84% across all services, ranging from 50% on Clee ward to 100% on Dale ward.

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 89%, ranging from 73% on Clee ward to 100% on Kinver ward.

The assessment and recording of mental capacity appeared to be carried out to a good standard

Adherence to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Mental Health Act (MHA) frameworks was generally of a good standard.

Updated 17 February 2017

We rated the service as good overall because:

The caseloads of health visitors were being monitored and managed well. Action was taken to ensure health visitor’s caseloads were manageable, in line with national guidance. Staffing levels in health visiting had improved since our last inspection. The caseload of the Family Inclusion Team had been reduced by transferring the care of some families to other members of the health visiting team.

The equipment provided for children used at home was being maintained in line with manufacturer’s maintenance requirements.

Improvements had been made to record keeping including the use of tracer cards when notes were transferred to another service.

Staff were ensuring children were safe by notifying the safeguarding team of any concerns using the trust’s incident reporting system.

Assessment and care planning was based on evidence-based guidance

There was a clear approach to monitoring, auditing and benchmarking the quality of children’s’ services and the outcomes for people receiving care and treatment.

Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment

Staff worked with other agencies in multi disciplinary teams to ensure the care children received was well co-ordinated.

Staff provided age appropriate care. They took time to interact with children and young people and their families and took account of children’s individual physical, emotional and social needs.

Staff recognised when children and families needed additional support. Staff helped families to understand the treatment provided and enabled them to make decisions around the care they received. Families were involved in planning care and treatment and could access interpreters and other support when required.

The clinical commissioning group (CCG) were developing a strategy to meet the needs of local families. Clinicians and managers from the children and family service were actively working with the CCG to develop services.

The service worked with social services and education providers to meet the needs of Children and Young People in the area, particularly children with complex needs, life-limiting conditions and disabilities.

Children waited longer than the trust’s target of 8 weeks from referral to treatment target but met the national waiting time standards for providing timely access to initial assessment, diagnosis and treatment

Health visiting services were meeting the targets for child development checks

Issues identified at the last inspection which required improvement had been addressed by managers in the trust.

There were good governance arrangements in place which meant incidents, audits, national guidelines and risks were discussed and the appropriate actions were taken.

The performance of the service was managed and action was taken to improve performance

Leaders had the capacity, capability, and experience to lead effectively

However,

The trust was not achieving targets for level 2 and 3 safeguarding training The proportion of staff who had completed the training had fallen since our last inspection from 88.2 % for level 2 and 93.3% for level 3 to 82% and 79% respectively. This meant 34 of eligible staff had not completed level 2 training and 31 staff had not completed level 3.

Children were referred to other teams within the trust but there were no shared records. Each service kept their own information about a child’s needs. Information was held in paper records. An IT system which supported information sharing was not in place and the service could not share information with GPs.

Not all services were accessible at one location for example speech therapy was not provided at the Sunflower Centre where other therapy services and the Children’s Assessment Unit was based.

The pathway for the Family Inclusion Team and the access thresholds was not clear and there was a risk that some families in need might not receive the level of service they required.

The Board did not have a designated executive lead for children. A non executive lead had been identified.

A strategy was being developed with the local Clinical Commissioning group but this was not yet in place.

Senior leaders were not visible to all staff.

The trust used a system of restorative supervision but the role of this form of supervision was not clear within the trust’s supervision policy. Restorative supervision was provided in addition to routine supervision for staff the trust believed needed additional support.

Updated 24 January 2020

We rated it as good because:

• The service provided safe care. Clinical premises where patients were seen were safe and clean. The number of patients on the caseload of the teams, and of individual members of staff, was sufficient for staff to give each patient the time they needed. Staff managed referrals to the service well and ensure that patients who required urgent care were seen promptly. Staff assessed and managed risk well and followed good practice with respect to safeguarding.
• Staff developed holistic, recovery-oriented care plans informed by a comprehensive assessment and in collaboration with families and carers if appropriate. They provided a range of treatments that were informed by best-practice guidance and suitable to the needs of the patients. Staff engaged in clinical audit to evaluate the quality of care they provided.
• The teams included the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of the patients. Managers ensured that these staff received training, supervision and appraisal. Staff worked well together as a multidisciplinary team and with relevant services outside the organisation.
• Staff understood the principles underpinning capacity, competence and consent as they apply to children and young people and managed and recorded decisions relating to these well.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and understood the individual needs of patients. They actively involved patients and families and carers in care decisions as appropriate.
• The service was easy to access. Staff assessed and treated patients who required urgent care promptly and those who did not require urgent care did not wait long to start treatment. The criteria for referral to the service did not exclude people who would have benefitted from care.
• The service was well led and the governance processes ensured that procedures relating to the work of the service ran smoothly.

Updated 24 January 2020

Our rating of this service improved. We rated it as good because:

• The service provided safe care. Clinical premises where patients were seen were now safe and clean. Previous problems with storage of medicines had been solved. The number of patients on the caseload of the teams, and of individual members of staff, was not too high to prevent staff from giving each patient the time they needed. Staff assessed and managed risk well and followed good practice with respect to safeguarding.
• Staff now developed holistic, recovery-oriented care plans informed by a comprehensive assessment and in collaboration with families and carers. They provided a range of treatments that were informed by best-practice guidance and suitable to the needs of the patients. Staff engaged in clinical audit and benchmarking to evaluate the quality of care they provided. Staff at Sandwell CAMHS participated in a multi-agency thematic inspection to audit how well local agencies worked together in an area to protect children.
• The teams included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of the patients. Staff worked well together as a multidisciplinary team and with relevant services outside the organisation.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and understood the individual needs of patients. Patients and carers we spoke with said they actively involved them in care decisions.
• The service was easy to access. Staff assessed and treated patients who required urgent care promptly. The criteria for referral to the service did not exclude children and young people who would have benefitted from care.
• The service was now well led and had put effective governance processes in place to ensure that procedures relating to the work of the service ran smoothly.

Updated 9 January 2019

Our rating of this service stayed the same. We rated it as good because:

• The service provided safe care. Clinical premises where patients were seen were safe and clean. Staff assessed and managed risk well and followed good practice with respect to safeguarding.
• The teams included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of patients. Managers ensured that these staff received training, supervision and appraisal. Staff worked well together as a multidisciplinary team and with services outside the organisation. Patients were able to see a psychiatrist in a timely manner and were seen urgently if required.
• Staff ensured that patients received any necessary assessment of their physical and mental health needs and provided a range of care and treatment interventions suitable for the patient group. Staff in the promoting access to main stream health services team (PAMHS) were proactive in ensuring that patients’ physical healthcare needs were being met and supported patients to live healthier lives.
• Staff used the Mental Capacity Act appropriately to determine if a patient had the capacity to make a specific decision. Staff gave patients every possible assistance to ensure they had the capacity to consent to treatment before they assumed that the patient lacked the mental capacity to make this decision.
• Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed that they were respectful and responsive. Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately and provided them with support when needed.
• All information provided was in a form accessible to the patient group. Staff provided patients with easy-read documentation to understand their treatment. Staff knew how to access interpreters for patients who required this service.
• Patient’s received responsive care from the service. The teams followed up with patients who did not attend appointments and supported them to attend in the future. Patients knew how to complain or raise concerns, and staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately.
• Leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles. Leaders had a good understanding of the services they managed, were visible in the service and staff found them approachable. Staff knew and understood the trust’s vision and values. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Staff spoke highly of the service manager. Staff felt positive and proud about working for the trust and their team.
• The provider had a comprehensive schedule of meetings and reporting systems to ensure good governance of the service. Staff had access to up to date information about the work of the services they used. Staff participated in benchmarking and quality improvement initiatives and had opportunities to participate in research.

However:

• Staffing levels could not be increased to accommodate an increase in caseload or acuity of the patient group. This meant that some staff were managing high caseloads. Staff caseloads were not formally reviewed and the service did not use a caseload management tool.
• More than half of the records reviewed did not contain a holistic, person-centred care plan that demonstrated the patient’s goals, treatment aims or detailed involvement across the multidisciplinary team. Patients were not routinely offered a copy of their care plan.
• Staff were not fully documenting when a best interests meeting had taken place for a patient who lacked capacity to make a decision.
• Staff did not routinely inform people using the service how they could access independent advocacy.
• Some patients referred to speech and language or physiotherapy were waiting longer than expected to receive an assessment.

Updated 26 April 2016

We rated community based mental health services for older people as outstanding because:

• Staff had good knowledge of safeguarding. They were trained to level three and identified risks and appropriate referrals were recorded.
• Each care and treatment record contained detailed risk assessments and risk management plans. These were reviewed regularly.
• Patients had access to advocacy services and staff knew how to support patients to make sure they had access.
• Patient information leaflets explaining how to complain were available in all locations. Staff knew how to respond to complaints.
• Each team followed appropriate national institute for health and care excellence guidelines; these included the use of low-dose antipsychotics in people with dementia and dementia,supporting people with dementia and their carers in health and social care.
• In order to meet the needs of the local population, the treatment and recovery unit had developed a Punjabi cognitive stimulation group. A further cognitive stimulation group had been developed in partnership with West Bromwich Albion football club.
• Staff told us they felt their managers were approachable and supportive.

• There was no occupational therapy or psychotherapy input within community-based mental health services for older people. The treatment and recovery unit and the groves day centre had no psychology input.
• Patients were not formally involved in the development of services or in staff interviews.

Updated 12 May 2022

Updated 9 January 2019

Our rating of this service stayed the same. We rated it as good because:

• All wards had detailed risk assessments and used these to keep patients safe. Ligature risks were managed well by staff who used detailed plans to manage patients care. Rooms were clean and well maintained and the clinic room was fully equipped to meet the needs of patients.
• Staff managed medication well. They had good support from the pharmacists and ensured medication was administered in a safe way to patients.
• Staff used national guidance including that set out by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to provide care for patients. Staff ensured care plans had been completed with input from patients and had updated them on a regular basis as patient needs changed.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and patients we spoke to said that staff looked after them and helped them Staff ensured patients had good access to advocacy. They made referrals or encouraged patients to refer themselves where possible.
• Patients always had their own bed to return to following a period of leave. Managers kept beds open for patients during the transition phase to new placements to ensure this was a smooth process for patients.
• Patients had access to an excellent range of easy read materials. We saw these were completed in both pictures and written language depending on the needs of each individual patient. Medication leaflets had a photograph of the medication box and medicines to support patients to understand what they had been prescribed and why.
• Staff felt supported in their roles. Staff reported that managers and senior staff at a local level were supportive and approachable. Managers used a dashboard to monitor staff performance including mandatory training and supervision.

However:

• Levels of clinical supervision for staff were low for qualified staff and healthcare assistants at Penrose House and for qualified staff at Daisy Bank due to staff sickness and there was no one available to provide this.
• Staff stored old copies of care plans and reports in patient files at Penrose House which made the files cumbersome and difficult to navigate.
• The activity programmes at Penrose House and Daisy Bank were limited and staff needed to ensure these were taking place.
• The wards did not complete audits of the Mental Capacity Act and actions in the Mental Health Act audits had not been completed. Staff had completed paperwork appropriately and this had not directly impacted on patients but had the potential to do so if not improved.
• Daisy Bank and Penrose House had delayed discharges at the time of the inspection. These were due to issues outside of their control such as suitable placements not being available for patients with complex needs. We saw that staff did what they could to keep the process moving for patients. As part of the Transforming Care Programme, overseen by NHS England, Daisy Bank closed post-inspection that meant they had no delayed discharges.
• Daisy Bank had not had permanent leadership over a period of 18 months and this had impacted on morale of the staff and patient care however the trust made the decision to close this ward in September 2018.

Updated 17 February 2017

We have rated forensic inpatient/secure ward as good overall because:

• Following our inspection in November 2015 we rated the service as ‘good’ for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well led. Since that inspection, we have received no information that would cause us to re-inspect these key questions or change the ratings.

However:

• Our rating of the safe key question remains requires improvement. This was because following our inspection of this service in November 2015, we asked the trust to ensure that training was provided to increase staff awareness of the Mental Health Act code of practice. During our inspection in October 2016, we found that less than 60% of qualified and unqualified staff had received this training. This was below the NHS national training standards and the trust's training compliance target.

Updated 12 May 2022

Updated 24 January 2020

• The service provided safe care. Clinical premises where patients were seen were safe and clean. The number of patients on the caseload of the teams, and of individual members of staff, was not too high to prevent staff from giving each patient the time they needed. Staff managed waiting lists well to ensure that patients who required urgent care were seen promptly. Staff assessed and managed risk well and followed good practice with respect to safeguarding. Though the service received a large number of referrals, the number of patients waiting for an appointment for longer than trust set-targets of 18 weeks was low.
• Staff developed holistic, recovery-oriented care plans informed by a comprehensive assessment and in collaboration with families and carers. They provided a range of treatments that were informed by best-practice guidance and suitable to the needs of the patients. Staff engaged in clinical audit to evaluate the quality of care they provided.
• The teams included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of the patients. Managers ensured that these staff received training, supervision and appraisal. Staff worked well together as a multidisciplinary team and with relevant services outside the organisation.
• Staff understood and discharged their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and understood the individual needs of patients. They actively involved patients and families and carers in care decisions. Care plans and sessions had been developed specifically to engage individuals. Thought had been given to patients’ interests and past experience to develop sessions and identify placements where they could use their skills. Patients told us that this reduced anxiety and made them feel like they were fully involved and, in some cases, having a positive influence at their placements.
• The service was easy to access. Staff assessed and treated patients who required urgent care promptly and those who did not require urgent care did not wait too long to start treatment. The criteria for referral to the service did not exclude patients who would have benefitted from care.
• The service was well led and the governance processes ensured that procedures relating to the work of the service ran smoothly.