St Andrew's Healthcare - Essex

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

This means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

Staff managed beds well. A bed was available when a patient needed one. Patients were not moved between wards except for their benefit. The design, layout, and furnishings of the wards supported patients’ treatment, privacy and dignity. Staff supported patients with activities outside the service, such as work, education and family relationships. The service met the needs of all patients – including those with a protected characteristic. Staff helped patients with communication, advocacy and cultural and spiritual support. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the findings.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

We scored the service as 3. The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff regularly met with patients to understand their views on care and treatment. These discussions took place in one-to-one meetings with nurses and in ward rounds. Staff monitored patients’ conditions and discussed any changes at daily handover meetings.

Systems were in place to ensure joint decision-making between staff and patients, with care plans reflecting patients physical, mental health, and social needs. Staff regularly involved patients and their families, using person-centred approaches consistently. We observed attentive staff always responding promptly and respectfully to patients’ needs.

We scored the service as 3. The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

This service admitted patients mainly from Essex for relatively short periods. The average length of stay was 86 days for Audley, 89 days for Benfleet and 63 days for Frinton wards. A smaller number of patients were admitted from other areas including Cambridge and Peterborough. The purpose of the service was to stabilise patients experiencing an acute episode of mental illness.

Family members, bed managers and care co-ordinators were all invited to multidisciplinary team meetings. The service facilitated attendance by video link if people were unable to attend the hospital. A member of staff from a local NHS trust worked from the hospital one day a week to enable him to attend meetings and speak with managers and clinical staff about the progress of patients from his trust. They told us they felt welcomed and supported to do this and all staff were very helpful and accommodating.

Where appropriate, staff ensured that patients had access to education and work opportunities. For example, patients were able to attend a local charity that provided support to adults who found it difficult to get experience and confidence in obtaining or returning to work. Patients could apply for paid jobs on the hospital site, for example, working in the café or the garden.

Staff began discharge planning from the point of admission and worked with care managers and coordinators to make sure this went well.

We scored the service as 3. The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff had access to the equipment and information technology needed to do their work.

Team managers had access to information to support them with their management role. This included information on the performance of the service, staffing and patient care. This information was presented and discussed in clinical governance meetings.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed. The service submitted notifications to the Care Quality Commission in accordance with the requirements of their registration. The service submitted safeguarding referrals to the local authority.

Staff made sure patients could access information on treatment and local services. Staff explained that information was provided for patients if it was needed.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records. Records were maintained in line with the providers policies and procedures, ensuring personal information was securely safeguarded.

We scored the service as 3. The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

During the inspection, we saw that information about how to make a complaint and how to raise concerns with the Care Quality Commission was available on noticeboards on the ward. There were feedback points in the hospital where patients and family members could scan a QR code on their phones which took them to an online form they could complete to give feedback about their care.

We saw from community meeting notes that staff and patients discussed complaints and concerns in the weekly community meeting and staff fed back at the beginning of these meetings updates and what had changed since the previous meeting. We saw ‘you said, we did’ boards on the ward.

Staff knew how to acknowledge complaints and tried to swiftly resolve complaints informally with patients. From January to April 2026, the hospital director received 6 formal complaints from patients and family members relating to concerns including cleanliness, communication with family members and staff attitude and behaviour. Managers investigated complaints and identified lessons learnt to be shared with staff.

We viewed the compliments log for the hospital and saw a high number of compliments recorded from patients, family members and external stakeholders praising staff and the care and treatment at the hospital.

We scored the service as 3. The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service ensured patients could access care, treatment, and support tailored to their individual needs. Through effective assessment processes, staff identified and removed barriers to care, particularly for individuals with complex needs or protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

Staff ensured the needs of patients with mobility issues were met.

There was adequate medical cover day and night. There were doctors who stayed on site and could attend the ward quickly in an emergency and the hospital was within a reasonable travelling distance to the local acute hospital.

Staff ensured patients had access to post-discharge care. For example, S117 aftercare, community mental health services and crisis services.

Staff planned for patients’ discharge including good liaison with care managers/co-ordinators.

.We scored the service as 3. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The service admitted patients from diverse religious and cultural backgrounds. Staff asked patients about their communication, religious and cultural needs when they were admitted to the ward.

Staff shared that adjustments were made to accommodate patients with diverse needs. Information was also made available in various formats and languages upon request to ensure accessibility. At the time of the inspection, a patient who whose first language was not English was admitted. Staff arranged for a translator to support with this patient.

All wards had accessible environments, including adjustable furniture, visual signage, quiet sensory spaces, and accessible gardens. Staff provided easy read materials and visual risk communication tools for patients with cognitive or communication needs.

The service had policies affirming transgender and non-binary rights (use of preferred name, pronouns, clothing and facilities).

Staff made sure patients could access information on treatment, local service, their rights and how to complain.

At the time of inspection, 98% of staff had completed training in diversity, equity and inclusion. The service provided The Oliver McGowan Mandatory Training on Learning Disability and Autism and compliance for this training at the time of inspection was 100%.

The service had clear policies aligned with equality, diversity, and inclusion principles to prevent disadvantage and promote fairness for all, including those with protected characteristics. The trust had signed up to the Patient and Carer Race Equality Framework (PCREF). PCREF is a national framework, launched by NHS England, designed to tackle racial disparities in mental health care and improve outcomes for diverse communities. The service had established a Champion PCREF sub-group to deliver the St Andrew’s PCREF Plan. The sub-group was working to successfully deploy PCREF through the service’s commitment to being an anti-racist, inclusive and culturally appropriate organisation.

We scored the service as 3. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The multidisciplinary team planned for each patient’s discharge and return to their local area. Staff began discharge planning at the point of admission with the goal for patients to stay in hospital for as short a time as possible.

Staff ensured that appropriate arrangements were in place to sustain the patient’s mental health. This included liaising with health and social care professionals in the patient’s local area to ensure they had appropriate accommodation to be discharged to and that a package of care was provided by the local mental health services.