Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Our overall rating of effective has stayed the same as good. Community health inpatient services for adults were rated as good.

This means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment, and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has remained as good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

The service provided holistic care plans covering individual needs with goals set with patients. These were regularly reviewed and updated if needs increased or decreased. Staff delivered a broad range of care and treatment interventions and followed best practice guidelines. The service worked effectively across teams and services to support people. The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing so they could maximise their independence and live healthier lives. The service monitored patient progress through individualised outcome measures based on each patient’s needs. Staff took all practical steps to enable patients to make their own decisions. When patients lacked capacity, staff made decisions in their best interests.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We scored the service as a 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service maximised the effectiveness of people’s care and treatment by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs with them.

We reviewed 9 care records, they were clear, up to date, holistic and included patients physical emotional and mental health needs. Staff completed a comprehensive assessment of the patient in a timely manner. Staff assessed patients’ physical health needs in a timely manner after admission. Staff developed care plans that met the needs identified during assessment.

Care plans were personalised, holistic and recovery oriented. Staff updated care plans when necessary. Staff provided a range of treatment and care for patients based on national guidance and best practice. The ward team included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of patients on the ward.

The hospital completed record keeping audits and identified any areas where improvements were required.

We scored the service as a 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what is important and matters to them and in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The hospital had several strategies and resources to support the psychological and emotional needs of patients. The service provided a specialist mental health multidisciplinary team who could provide assessment, diagnosis, treatment and follow up support for people experiencing mental health deterioration while a patient.

There was a chaplain service, a specialist dementia and frailty service. The wards provided access to a wide range of activity resources aimed at supporting cognitive function, memory retention, and emotional wellbeing. We observed patients engaged in activities including a large word search on a computer screen and arts and crafts. Visiting hours were flexible and a recent changed on CICC allowed visitors to be involved in physiotherapy sessions.

Staff had received dementia awareness training. The hospital were reviewing additional bespoke training sessions for staff to further enhance knowledge of dementia, mental health, emotional and psychological wellbeing, communication styles, and therapeutic approaches.

Staff followed up-to-date policies to plan and deliver high quality care according to best practice and national guidance. Staff had access to procedures and policies on the hospital intranet. This included resources for staff on end-of-life care, wound care, urinary tract protocol, dementia care, physical health sessions, rehabilitation gym project and upper limb clinic. On the wards we observed leaflets for patients and for staff use, for example bereavement support and a post fall protocol.

In addition to food and fluid charts, medical staff monitored patients with pain charts and had a nonverbal pain chart to determine if they need more pain management. Patients were assessed on admission and facial expressions and gestures were used to support communication.

Staff were experienced, qualified and had the right skills and knowledge to meet the needs of patients. Managers told us that staff had many opportunities for continual learning and development through courses and shadowing other staff. Staff told us they have had specialist training including end of life, venepuncture and catheterisation.

Managers gave all new staff a full induction tailored to their role before they started work. Managers supported staff to develop through yearly, constructive appraisals of their work. Staff told us they had regular supervision and appraisal and were well supported in their role.

Managers made sure staff attended team meetings or had access to full notes when they could not attend. Managers identified any training needs their staff had and gave them the time and opportunity to develop their skills and knowledge.

Staff had the opportunity to discuss training needs with their line manager and were supported to develop their skills and knowledge. Managers made sure staff received specialist training for their role.

We stored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked effectively across teams and services to support people, making sure they only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when they moved between different services.

Staff held regular and effective multidisciplinary meetings to discuss patients and improve their care. We observed several meetings during our on-site assessment. Staff worked together as a team to provide on going solutions for care delivered on the ward and planning for future discharge.

A local GP practice commended the team for their strong joint-working approach. They described the team as easy to work with, highly knowledgeable, and consistently motivated, with the patient placed firmly at the centre of all activity. They found staff to be approachable, open, and willing to address any issues or concerns as they arose.

A social worker who regularly attends team meetings also spoke positively about the service. They reported that the team is very well managed and that each meeting includes meaningful contributions from a range of specialists for every patient discussed. The meetings consider both the person’s physical and mental health needs, along with their current abilities and the goals required to support greater independence.

The social worker described clear planning processes focused on enabling people to return home whenever safe and appropriate, or identifying alternative care settings when home discharge is not viable. The team worked closely with social care to ensure all relevant information was shared and that individuals were safe and equipped with the necessary support, equipment, and care arrangements prior to discharge.

We scored the service a 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing so they could maximise their independence, choice and control, live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff supported patients to live healthier lives. Staff made sure patients had enough to eat and drink, including those with specialist nutrition and hydration needs. Managers told us nutrition and hydration were assessed on admission and patients were weighed weekly. Referrals were made to thedietitian if patients have a specialist diet. Food and fluid charts were used which staff used to monitor patients’ intake.

Patients could access drinks on the wards independently from a drinks station which visitors could also use.

Patients could access healthy snacks and had a choice of meals to meet their individual nutritional needs. For patients recovering from a stroke, the ward had menus in a picture format, patients were able to point to the meal of their choice.

Both wards had a gym, where patients received physiotherapy to aid rehabilitation. Specialist support from staff such asdietitian and speech and language therapists was available for patients who needed it. The service had relevant information promoting healthy lifestyles and support on the wards.

Staff assessed each patient’s health when admitted and provided support for any individual needs to live a healthier lifestyle.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it and to ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Outcomes for patients were positive; managers told us patients were assessed for discharge as soon as they arrived and there was a clear plan in place for patients to achieve discharge as soon as fit. Patients and carers we spoke with told us they understood the purpose of the ward and expected outcomes and they participated in plans and discharge meetings. The average stay for a patient on the wards, during the 12 months November 2024 to October 2025 was 26 days.

Managers told us ideas for potential improvements were shared and discussed at MDT meetings and a plan was then made to implement changes.

Managers and staff carried out a comprehensive programme of repeated audits to check improvement over time. We noted a schedule of quality assurance audits from April to October 2025 including electronic medicine prescribing and administration, person centred care, health and safety, fire safety, and infection prevention control. These audits were conducted weekly monthly or quarterly basis through this time.

Managers used information from the audits to improve care and treatment. Managers shared and made sure staff understood information from the audits.

We scored the service a 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when they delivered person-centred care and treatment.

Staff took all practical steps to enable patients to make their own decisions. For patients who might have impaired mental capacity, staff assessed and recorded capacity to consent appropriately. Managers told us that at admission if cognitive impairments were identified, staff would complete a Mental Capacity Assessment (MCA). Where necessary best interest decisions were then made and a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding (DOLS) was completed and sent to safeguarding and the local authority.

When patients lacked capacity to consent, staff made decisions in their best interests, recognising the importance of the person’s wishes, feelings, culture, and history. Staff told us if patients did not have capacity they would speak to their relatives.

Staff clearly recorded consent in the patients’ records. We observed from the records that staff documented consent to treatment for each intervention.

Staff received and kept up to date with training in MCA and DOLS. At the time of inspection staff had achieve 92% compliance for safeguarding adults and children level 2 and 86% for Safeguarding Adults Level 3, both of which included MCA and DOLS.

Managers monitored the use of DOLS and made sure staff knew how to complete them. Staff could describe and knew how to access policy and get accurate advice on the MCA and DOLS. Staff implemented DOLS in line with approved documentation.