- SERVICE PROVIDER
Lincolnshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
This is an organisation that runs the health and social care services we inspect
Report from 13 March 2026 assessment
Contents
Ratings - Forensic inpatient or secure wards
Our view of the service
We assessed Francis Willis Unit on the 10 February 2026.
Located in Lincoln, Francis Willis Unit is a low secure forensic unit for males with mental health conditions who present with high risk or challenging behaviours. It offers support to those who are detained under the Mental Health Act (MHA).
The service provides care and treatment up to 15 males. Staff support patients to decrease their levels of behaviours that challenge by providing continuing care, with a focus on community reintegration and preparing the person to move further along the care pathway, or to community living.
The secure services offer comprehensive support to people with complex mental health needs. The service provision is modelled on the NHS secure service specification for medium and low secure services, ensuring patients are given the highest quality of care to enable quick and smooth transitions into local services, wherever possible. The service aims to deliver clinically effective, evidence-based treatment programmes for individuals who require secure care, providing both psychological and physical security.
The service was last rated as Good (published June 2017). This was an unannounced assessment, which means the provider was not told an assessment was going to be taking place beforehand. During this assessment, we looked at all quality statements across all 5 key questions. The current rating reflects the findings from this assessment. We rated this service as Good.
Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Compliance Summary
Most staff had completed Mental Health Act training at Levels 1 and 2, and staff demonstrated a strong understanding of the MHA and its requirements. Staff had access to administrative support and legal advice regarding the application of the Act and the Code of Practice, and they were clear about who their Mental Health Act Administrators were.
Local Mental Health Act policies and procedures, as well as the Code of Practice, were readily accessible to staff. Information about Independent Mental Health Advocacy (IMHA) services was also easily available to people using the service.
Staff consistently explained patients’ rights under the MHA in a way that individuals could understand, repeating this information as required, and documenting the discussions appropriately. Staff ensured that patients were able to take Section 17 leave when authorised, and processes were in place to support safe and timely facilitation of this.
Where required, staff sought opinions from a Second Opinion Appointed Doctor (SOAD). Detention papers and associated documents, such as Section 17 leave forms, were stored securely and appropriately, ensuring they were accessible to relevant staff.
Regular audits of Mental Health Act practice were undertaken. These audits demonstrated good compliance, and there was clear evidence of learning and improvement actions being taken in response to audit findings.
Compliance with Mental Capacity Act training was strong, with 93% of staff having completed MCA training. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the MCA, particularly the five statutory principles, and were able to describe how these informed their practice.
The provider had an up‑to‑date Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) policy. Staff were aware of this and able to access it easily. They also knew how to obtain advice relating to the MCA and DoLS from within the service.
Staff took all reasonable steps to support individuals to make their own decisions. Where a person’s capacity was in question, staff carried out and documented capacity assessments appropriately and on a decision‑specific basis. These assessments focused on significant decisions and demonstrated a clear rationale.
When individuals lacked capacity, decision‑making processes were completed in line with best‑interest principles. Staff and relatives were involved appropriately, and there was clear consideration of the person’s wishes, feelings, cultural background, and personal history.
The service had reliable arrangements in place to monitor compliance with the MCA, helping to ensure consistent and lawful practice.