HMP Manchester

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We looked at 2 quality statements 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.

Systems and processes had improved and were effective. Managers used data to manage and monitor key quality and patient safety information. The provider had introduced a clear process for health care staff to report insufficient officer supervision on a particular wing (H1).

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

The judgement for Shared direction and culture is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Freedom to speak up is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

At our previous inspection, we were concerned about the provider’s systems and processes for assessing and monitoring the quality of the service. At this inspection, we found they had improved their governance arrangements.

Managers analysed data sufficiently to identify and understand patient safety concerns, gaps in service provision and opportunities for service development. This included improved scrutiny of data relating to complaints, incidents, clinic attendance and the use of audit. This meant managers had better oversight of risk, quality and performance.

The provider had a register of risks relating specifically to HMP Manchester. At the time of our inspection, there were 9 risks registered including those associated with delays to transfers of patients to hospitals; infection control risks due to the state of the prison environment; and the impact of enablement issues. Risks were now managed locally with links to regional and corporate risk management processes.

Local Delivery Board meetings had recommenced monthly. These were attended by the different health care disciplines as well as the prison’s main governor and health care link governor. This gave the prison and healthcare the opportunity to share information, raise issues and identify solutions. The provider had reviewed their monthly local clinical governance meetings to improve their effectiveness.

The judgement for Partnerships and communities is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

At our previous inspection, we found the provider had not raised risks relating to insufficient prison officer supervision on wing H1, which accommodated prisoners with complex health and social care needs. At this inspection, we found the provider had developed a “Lack of Officer Supervision on H1 wing Escalation Flowchart”. This set out the actions to be taken when health care staff had concerns about insufficient officer supervision on the H1 wing. This included reporting such events and escalating concerns to senior managers, and meetings and boards.

The staff and managers we spoke with recognised the potential risks to patients (and themselves) when there was not enough officer support on the wing. Staff were fully aware of the need to report incidents associated with insufficient or no officer supervision. Staff felt confident in raising and reporting these incidents and gave examples of when they had done so.

Staff were clear they should not be left in an unlocked wing if there was no officer present, and that they should challenge officers if they asked to leave the wing, even for a moment. However, staff still expressed concerns about a lack of officer supervision when patients were locked in their cells, which presented a potential risk of delayed responses to accidents and emergencies, such as falls.