HMP Manchester

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We looked at 1 quality statement in this key question. We found the provider had made sufficient progress to address the regulatory breaches found at our previous inspection and was no longer in breach. The provider had improved the complaints process and had started to invite patient feedback about health care services.

Find out what we look at when we assess this area in our information about our new Single assessment framework.

The judgement for Person-centred Care is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Care provision, Integration and continuity is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Providing Information is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

We looked at the local (onsite) complaints process. Patients could complain in several ways, for example, completing a health care complaints form, writing a letter, or using the prison’s self-service system. Healthcare now had their own complaints boxes, which improved access for patients and helped to maintain confidentiality.

Staff collected the complaints daily and administrative staff logged them on an improved spreadsheet before allocating them to the relevant specialist lead for a response within 5 calendar days. They used the complaints spreadsheet to track the progress of the concern from receipt to resolution, sending a reminder to assigned leads if they had not received a response in the required time, and informing managers of any delays and issues.

We reviewed 8 complaints and responses. We found good quality responses that were apologetic in tone and addressed the concerns raised. Most patients received a response within 3 to 5 days. Most responses were typed and advised the patient on what to do next if they were dissatisfied, such as making contacting with the trust’s central complaints team or an independent advocacy service.

All clinical staff had received training in handling complaints. Managers checked the quality of responses monthly.

At our previous inspection, we found a lack of patient involvement and consultation. At this inspection, we found the provider had started to consult and invite feedback from patients. The provider had issued surveys to patients but initially received very few responses. They continued to encourage patients to complete surveys and provide feedback, while also liaising with the prison about setting up patient forums.

When the number of responses had increased, the provider analysed the feedback and produced a report. We reviewed the report for January 2025, which showed mostly positive feedback.

The judgement for Equity in access is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Equity in experiences and outcomes is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Planning for the future is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.