Right to Respond

As part of our commitment to providing an honest and transparent view of health and social care services, Healthwatch Birmingham & Solihull encourages providers to respond to comments the public have left.

Alongside ensuring providers can have a fair say in discussions about their services, replying to reviews demonstrates evidence of responding to patient feedback for the CQC, who regularly monitor our Feedback Centre. It is also an effective way to recruit service users for any wider engagement work at your organisation.

Guidelines for provider responses:

  • Keep language appropriate and civil
  • Remain professional and treat people’s comments fairly
  • Engage with the content of the review by addressing specific points and avoid cut and pasting a standard response
  • Don’t disclose the service user’s personal details or any potentially identifying information
  • Where appropriate leave organisational contact details e.g PALS or patient engagement teams for people to get further information

Remember: your response will be seen by everyone who uses the Feedback Centre, not just the original reviewer. All responses are moderated in accordance with our moderation policy.

For full terms and conditions, including a guide to how right to reply works for service providers download this guide.

Your reply

* Required fields

Original feedback for

Meadowcroft Unit PiCU


Preventable suicide

I am writing this review from the most painful place a family can stand — after the loss of my loved one to suicide. What happened to him at BSMHFT ( Meadowcroft) was, in my view, profoundly distressing and left lasting damage that he never recovered from. As a family, we watched him being treated in ways that felt superficial, disconnected, and completely lacking in any real understanding of his human needs. In our experience, the care he received seemed to rely almost entirely on medication, with no genuine attempt to see him as a whole person. Over time, he went from being vibrant and hopeful to becoming withdrawn, traumatised, and utterly depleted. It felt as though he had been reduced to nothing more than a diagnosis. A Regulation 28 Prevention of Future Deaths report was issued to BSMHFT in relation to his case — something that, to us, speaks volumes about the seriousness of what happened. One of the most devastating parts of his experience was his discharge from intensive psychiatric care without the mandatory Section 117 aftercare that should have supported him. From our perspective, this left him feeling cast aside, as though he no longer mattered. The hopelessness that followed was overwhelming, and we believe this lack of meaningful support contributed to his decline. Nothing will undo what happened, but I can say that, based on our family’s experience, the service he received did not just fall short — it left him feeling abandoned and hopeless at his most vulnerable moment. I would give a rating far below zero if such a thing existed. We hope that no other family will have to endure the same loss and witness their family member receiving the same treatment.