- SERVICE PROVIDER
Black Country Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
This is an organisation that runs the health and social care services we inspect
Assessment report published 3 November 2026
Contents
Ratings - Acute wards for adults of working age and psychiatric intensive care units
Our view of the service
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.
People's experience of this service
We spoke with 23 patients and 10 family members or carers about their experiences of care.
Most patients provided positive feedback and described staff as kind, caring, supportive and approachable. Many said they felt safe and valued the support they received, particularly during periods of distress. Patients spoke positively about relationships with staff, support from multidisciplinary teams and their involvement in ward reviews, safety planning, medication reviews and care planning. Several patients said staff listened to concerns and took action when issues were raised. Others highlighted support with finances, benefits, housing and discharge planning.
Patients reported having access to advocacy services and support to maintain contact with relatives and carers. Many felt their cultural, religious, dietary and individual needs were recognised and respected.
Some patients were satisfied with the range of activities available. However, several felt there were insufficient opportunities for meaningful activity and engagement on the wards and would have liked greater access to therapeutic and recreational activities.
Patients also described challenges affecting their overall experience of care. Recurring themes included staffing shortages, limited staff availability, concerns about food quality and choice, and aspects of the ward environment such as shared bathroom facilities and delays in maintenance. Many patients felt these issues affected their day-to-day experience, although most remained positive about the care and support provided by ward staff.
Some patients reported that information about their care and treatment was not always communicated in a way they could easily understand. Others found ward reviews intimidating or said they were not always given sufficient notice of appointments with visiting professionals.
Overall, patients were positive about ward staff and generally felt safe, respected and supported.
Family members and carers also described staff as caring, kind and supportive, and many felt their relatives were treated with dignity and respect. Several reported seeing improvements in their relative's wellbeing during admission. However, some carers said they were not always kept informed about incidents, care reviews or changes to treatment and raised concerns about staff responsiveness and aspects of the ward environment.