- SERVICE PROVIDER
Provide Community Interest Company
This is an organisation that runs the health and social care services we inspect
Assessment report published 2 February 2026
Contents
Ratings - Community health inpatient services
Our view of the service
Provide Community Interest Company (Provide CIC) delivers a diverse range of health and social care services across Essex, East Anglia, outer northeast London, and parts of northern England. The organisation specialises in providing community-based health services in people’s homes, clinic settings, and inpatient wards.
This inspection focused solely on the inpatient rehabilitation wards located at Halstead Hospital and Brentwood Hospital, which together offer 45 inpatient beds. The inspection was carried out on 14, 15, and 23 October 2025.
The wards provided rehabilitation for adults following an episode of care in an acute hospital or for those requiring additional support in a hospital. Both wards accepted:
Step-up admissions – patients who needed additional support but did not require admission to an acute hospital.
Step-down admissions – patients transferred from an acute hospital for ongoing rehabilitation.
Halstead Ward provides intermediate care through a short-term, goal-oriented programme for patients who are medically stable but need rehabilitation, reablement, or support prior to returning home.
Bayman Ward, based at Brentwood Hospital, specialises in stroke rehabilitation and delivers a six-week stroke rehabilitation pathway for patients recovering from a stroke.
Services across both wards were delivered by nurse-led multidisciplinary teams, including therapists, support staff, and medical professionals, working collaboratively to support patient recovery and discharge planning.
The inpatient wards were last inspected in 2019 and were rated as good overall. No breaches of regulation were identified at that time; however, there were several areas where the provider was advised to make improvements. During this inspection, we reviewed those areas and found that action had been taken, and improvements had been made to address all previously identified recommendations. However, following this inspection, we identified new areas requiring improvement relating to the safety of medicines, and the service was found to be in breach of regulations for safe care and treatment.
Mental Capacity Act Compliance
Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, particularly the 5 statutory principles.
Staff made deprivation of liberty safeguard applications when required and monitored the progress of applications to supervisory bodies. There were 12 deprivations of liberty safeguard applications made in the last 12 months to protect people without capacity to make decisions about their own care.
Staff knew where to get advice from the provider regarding the Mental Capacity Act, including deprivation of liberty safeguards.The safeguarding team were available for advice and support to the staff on the wards.
Staff took all practical steps to enable patients to make their own decisions. We saw examples of capacity assessments that were on a decision specific basis, such as their stay on the ward or longer-term plans.
When patients lacked capacity, staff made decisions in their best interests, recognising the importance of the person’s wishes, feelings, culture and history.We saw examples of best interest meetings where family were involved to ensure the preferences, wishes and decisions by the patient were maintained.
For patients who might have had impaired mental capacity, staff assessed and recorded capacity to consent appropriately, doing so on a decision-specific basis for significant decisions.
Patient areas were safe, clean, well equipped, well furnished, well maintained and fit for purpose. Staff assessed patients’ needs and managed risks to patients and themselves well. Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so. Staff were responsive to meeting patients’ holistic needs and involving patients. Staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion. The service managed patient safety incidents well. Leaders were knowledgeable, approachable and visible within the service. However, the service was in breach of the regulation for safe care and treatment for not always making sure that medicines and treatments were safe, available, and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.
People's experience of this service
During our inspection visit, we spoke with 14 patients across Halstead and Bayman wards. All patients reported feeling safe, and feedback about their experiences of care was positive. However, 4 patients identified areas for improvement, specifically relating to requests that had not been facilitated despite asking staff for support. One patient also raised concerns about an incident in which the attitude and approach of some staff caused them distress.
We shared these concerns with the provider, who gave an immediate response outlining the actions taken to resolve each issue. They also spoke with the patients who remained on the wards to review their experiences. The provider raised an incident report, investigated the incident that had caused distress, and shared learning from all concerns with staff to prevent recurrence.
Patients told us that staff were responsive to their needs, and all patients confirmed they were engaged in decisions about their care and treatment. They reported receiving regular therapeutic support that helped them become stronger and more independent.
Patients described staff as respectful and kind, offering comments such as, “The help and encouragement I receive is amazing,” and “They go above and beyond for you; they do show respect.”
Patients on Halstead ward reported having fewer activities available to them compared with those on Bayman ward, and patients on both wards said they would like more activities to be offered.
We spoke with 8 family members of patients on Halstead and Bayman wards. All of those we spoke with felt their loved ones were receiving good care. They reported their relatives felt safe and staff were kind, supportive, and attentive to their needs. Carers said communication regarding care and treatment was effective and their relatives received effective therapeutic rehabilitation to support progress. Family members saw improvements in their relatives whilst on the wards. They felt involved in the process and kept informed throughout their relative’s stay. They were satisfied with the support their relative received with personal hygiene and commented on how dietary needs were accommodated such as lactose intolerance and thickening agents to support swallowing.
In May 2025, the customer engagement team introduced monthly ward visits to strengthen engagement. These visits involved direct interaction with patients and their families, with immediate feedback provided to ward staff to support prompt action.
The latest inpatient ward survey responses showed improvement, with 71 responses received compared with 52 in the previous survey. Results were generally positive: 163 out of 167 respondents said they would recommend the ward to friends and family if they were unwell; 165 out of 167 reported feeling safe on the ward; and 165 out of 167 said staff listened to them.
Feedback was shared with ward managers for follow-up, and they consulted directly with patients to address any issues raised. Survey results were regularly communicated from board level to the ward teams.
The hospital wards completed a Friends and Family Test (FFT) where 89 responses were received during October 2024 and September 2025. For Bayman ward, 97% of responses cited their experience to be good or very good. Managers recognised the limited responses, particularly on Halstead ward, and were revising their Friends and Family Test platform to prioritise key questions and improve usability.