- SERVICE PROVIDER
Herefordshire and Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust
This is an organisation that runs the health and social care services we inspect
Report from 14 January 2026 assessment
Contents
Ratings - Community health inpatient services
Our view of the service
Community Health Inpatient Services at Herefordshire and Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust are based across 7 sites: Malvern Community Hospital, Pershore Community Hospital, Princess of Wales Community Hospital, Evesham Community Hospital, Tenbury Community Hospital, The Robertson Centre – Wrye Forest Ward and Worcester City Inpatient Unit.
We carried out an unannounced inspection of Princess of Wales Community Hospital and Worcester City Inpatient Unit on 29 September 2025 and 30 September 2025. Our inspection was triggered due to information of concern we received about Princess of Wales Community Hospital in July 2025.
Princess of Wales Community Hospital comprises of 2 general rehabilitation wards: Cottage ward and Lickey ward. The hospital also comprises of a specialist palliative care unit (Primrose Unit,) a nurse-led minor injuries unit and a therapy/nurse-led outpatient rehabilitation and assessment unit. We visited Cottage and Lickey ward as part of this assessment.
Worcester City Inpatient Unit comprises of 2 wards: Apple Orchard ward and Cherry Orchard ward. We visited Cherry Orchard ward as part of this assessment. We had planned to visit Apple Orchard Ward however this was closed permanently prior to our visit.
We looked at all quality statements in Safe and Well-led as part of this assessment.
The previous rating for this service was Good; this has changed to Requires Improvement. We rated Safe as Requires Improvement, this has changed from a previous rating of Good. We rated Well-led as Requires Improvement, this has changed from a previous rating of Outstanding.
The provider was taking action to address some of the concerns we identified during our visit; however ongoing work was required to ensure improvements were embedded into practice.
We found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 in relation to good governance. We found that governance systems and processes were not always effective in the identification and management of health and safety risks.
Action we have taken
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
Mental Capacity Act Compliance
Staff had mandatory training in the Mental Capacity Act. Compliance varied across the 3 wards we visited. Compliance on Cottage ward was 100% but this was lower on Lickey ward (81.3%) and Cherry Orchard ward (75%.)
Staff did not always take all practical steps to enable patients to make their own decisions. Some patients had ReSPECT (a Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment) forms in place. We did not always see evidence that these forms had been developed through conversations with the patient and their relatives, as wishes and preferences were not always documented.
The provider had a policy on the Mental Capacity Act, including Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS.) Staff were aware of the policy and had access to it.
Staff knew where to get advice from within the provider regarding the Mental Capacity Act, including DoLS.
For patients who might have impaired mental capacity, staff assessed and recorded capacity to consent appropriately. They did this on a decision-specific basis with regard to significant decisions.
When patients lacked capacity, staff made decisions in their best interests, recognising the importance of the person’s wishes, feelings, culture and history.
Staff made DoLS applications when required and monitored the progress of applications to supervisory bodies.
People’s experience
We spoke with 10 patients and 9 relatives during this assessment. We used observation methods to gather evidence on people’s experience of those who were not willing or could not verbally communicate with us.
Patients and relatives told us that staff were compassionate and treated them well. However, some patients said staff were busy and did not always have the capacity to respond to them quickly when they needed support. Patients told us the food was good, and they were able to access dietary options which met their individual needs. Patients and relatives told us they could raise concerns with staff, and they felt confident this would be managed appropriately. Patients and relatives told us they received some information they wanted from staff, however, one relative said they would have liked more frequent updates and one relative could not tell us whether they had been involved in care planning. One patient told us they would like to be supported in contacting their family more often. Patients and relatives were generally happy with the level of rehabilitation support they received on the wards.
While the people we spoke to expressed they were mostly happy with their care, our assessment found that some elements of the care did not meet the expected standards.