It was not possible to gain the direct views of people who use the service on this occasion as the assessment was conducted remotely. However a range of information was obtained that demonstrated how the provider ensures people who use services are involved in decisions about services and how their views are obtained. Submissions from the Sheffield LiNK (local involvement network) demonstrated how the provider has worked with and involved LiNK participants in influencing the city wide strategy for improving mental health services in Sheffield. For example, the LiNK participants work on recovery wards had been fed back to managers and staff, leading to changes in care in respect of service users' sexuality, spirituality and problems with social interaction. The LiNK has been involved in the quality reporting process with the provider and stated “we are pleased with how we have been engaged in this and we will possibly be doing some joint enter and view visits.” The provider included some views of people who use services who had fed back comments as part of its last complainants survey, for example, one comment stated, “I like the face to face contact. I felt they understood our concerns and did their best to address them”.

The south west sector community mental health team gave an example of engagement with the Asian community where the Imam of the local mosque had promoted the idea of a mental health ‘drop in’ which used in respect of issuing general information and group discussion around mental health issues. At the end of the 10 week pilot a delegation of mosque elders and the Imam commented on how valuable the sessions had been and requested that the sessions continue. Examples of quotes from people who use services include, “I just wanted to say thank you for all the help and guidance you have given me over the past year…”, “Just need to say all the staff at Fitzwilliam Centre are very good at what they do…” and, “I have the highest regard for all these professionals and the work they have done over the last few years in helping this very needy group of men”.

The findings of this inspection do not impact on the ratings from the last inspection, undertaken in November 2014.

At this inspection we found the following areas of good practice:

• The trust had a clear vision and values, supported by a set of strategic aims and there was a clear governance structure and arrangements.
• Surplus funds were used to improve quality and safety for patients.
• The board assurance framework had 14 identified risks, which had clear links to the trust’s strategic objectives, none of these risks, was rated as high.
• Following a review undertaken by the Good Governance Institute, a change in executive roles is to take place to ensure a balance between roles and capacity to deliver each portfolio.
• There was service user involvement in service design, planning and evaluation.
• The chief executive and chief nurse spent time each month in a clinical area and staff told us they valued this.
• The chief nurse and the medical director were trained as coaches and were providing training and individual coaching to staff in the organisation.
• Learning from incidents and complaints was visible at all levels of the organisation.
• The trust participated in external peer review and service accreditation.
• There was a commitment to engage with people who use the services of the trust in planning, implementing and evaluating services across the trust.

However:

• The uptake of mandatory training was below the trust target of 80%.
• We found a number of policies that had not been reviewed on time.
• Redecoration and improvements were required to some areas in a unit for people with dementia. Improvements, which had been identified as being necessary to provide a more suitable environment for people with dementia, had not been completed.
• The trust had not implemented the 2015 MHA code of practice across all services of the trust.
• Compliance with mandatory Mental Health Act, Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of liberty training was very low for all staff and was not monitored for effectiveness by senior management of the trust.