Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust

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

Overall rating of responsive has stayed the same as good. Community health inpatient services for adults were rated as good.

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

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

Staff tailored care to individual patient needs and preferences. The service provided care that met the diverse health and care needs of patients and their communities. The service provided appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The service supported people to share feedback or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. The service made sure that everyone could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it. The service listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experiences of care and tailored the care, support, and treatment in response to this. The service supported people to plan for the future.

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 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and decided, in partnership with them, how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs.

During the first assessment staff told us patients’ needs were assessed to ensure patients receive appropriate support and personalised care. For example, religion, mobility, and gender preferences were obtained so that a holistic care package can be developed including as appropriate a patient’s relatives.

On Avocet ward there were clothes that patients could choose to use if they did not have their own clothes to wear on the ward. Patients could choose to stay in their own rooms or spend time in the communal lounge. We observed a patient in a communal lounge watching the TV and domestic staff served them with tea and biscuits. They told us this was their regular routine while on the ward. Staff told us they used translation and sign language services to support patients.

The provider had interpreting and translation services for staff to access if required for individual patients. Leaflets and information were available in an accessible format for example we observed a leaflet for patients describing hospital routines for regaining independence.

Staff empowered patients to make their own decisions about their care and treatment. Occupational therapists on the wards told us they completed assessments to review how activities and the environment can be adapted to meet individual needs. The provider told us they had created videos to help orient patients to treatment environments and sites. Staff reported this had been especially useful for an autistic patient. A staff member had developed a sensory bag project the bag consisted of ear defenders, tangle fidget, a sunflower lanyard, breathing exercises and emotion visuals.

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

The provider had developed for staff a toolkit for identifying and supporting patients protected characteristics. The trust had an Equality Inclusion and Human Rights policy to provide an overarching approach to meeting the needs of people with protected characteristics.

The service was inclusive and took account of patients’ individual needs and preferences. Staff made reasonable adjustments to help patients access services. They coordinated care with other services and providers. The hospital needs-based assessment for patients captured protected characteristics for example patients can order Afro Caribbean, Halal and Kosher meals. Patients can have their own room if they require a quiet space for prayer.

Staff knew their patients well. We observed 1 patient who could not speak after suffering a stroke, their staff member was able to communicate with them and understand their hand gestures. During a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDT) staff left to assist 1 patient who they heard crying out and recognised this patient cry.

Facilities and premises were appropriate for the services being delivered. We observed a patient who was using an air mattress for their individual needs, a patient using a wheelchair with her feet to move along (the footplates had been removed to enable this) and a patient using a wheelchair with a foam cushion. We observed an occupational health (OT) bedroom suite and kitchen, which provided different furniture and equipment to meet individual rehabilitation needs.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service provided appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that tailored to individual needs.

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

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, how to complain and so on. The information provided was in a form accessible to the particular patient group. Patients were regularly updated about their treatment and discharge plans.

We observed posters on the wards asking people to submit a review of their experience of care that day with a website address and a CQC board giving the details of how to submit their care experience.

Staff ensured carers, families and commissioners were regularly updated about the patient’s progress. Carers told us that they had been kept up to date with their relatives’ condition and progress and knew who to contact if they had a question or a concern. They were also told if there was a change in treatment or care in a clear and timely way.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support. They involved them in decisions about their care and told them what’s changed as a result.

The provider offered a range of services to listen to the patient voice. Feedback opportunities were available for patients through a special website address and volunteers and lived experience ambassadors visited the wards. Patient and carers feedback was also gained as part of internal compliance visits.

The provider reported a total number of 2 complaints in the last 12 months. One of those complaints were upheld and the other was open. There were no complaints referred to the ombudsman.

Patients told us they knew how to complain or raise concerns. One patient told us she would speak to the doctor if they wanted to complain.

We scored the service as a 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that everyone could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The wards held regular weekly length of stay meetings to discuss any delays in patient discharge and to identify any potential problems that may cause a patient delay. Managers told us that as soon as patients were admitted onto the wards, discharge planning started including involving family members. We observed discharge meetings as part of our on-site assessment. The teams discussed each patient in turn and identified any immediate concerns around reasons for delayed discharge for example equipment and funding for residential or nursing care. External social care colleagues attended discharge meetings.

During the last 12 months November 2024 to December 2025 there had been an average of 14 patient per month delayed discharges on CICC ward. In the other wards there were minimal delays.

Managers and staff worked to make sure patients did not stay longer than they needed to. The average length of stay across the 5 community wards was 26 days during the months November 2024 to October 2025.

Managers told us that they engage with families, as if families are struggling with providing care for their relative, this may change the pathway. Staff at Avocet ward link in with a reablement team when patients go home which can last for up to 28 days. Carers told us they had been given advice and guidance for services when their relative left the hospital, for example meals on wheels, social prescribing, and occupational therapy.

Managers monitored the number of patients whose discharges were delayed, knew which wards had the most delays, and took action to reduce them.

We score the service as a 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service actively sought out and listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. They tailored the care, support, and treatment in response to this.

All staff were trained in Equality Diversity and Inclusion and at the time of assessment 98% of all staff had completed this training.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. The provider used Inclusion Ambassadors and volunteers to bring their lived experience to the wards. Volunteers collaborated with paid staff, for example with speech and language therapy assisting groups. There was also a buddy scheme and patient information and plain English group, aimed at ensuring written material is easy to understand. The provider had a commitment to coproduction and produced a toolkit for managers and staff to assist them involving people with lived experience in projects.

Patients had access to advocacy; we did not however see any posters displayed on the wards.

The provider told us the patient experience team facilitated patients, carers and stakeholder groups to ensure they provide the very best experience.

For senior staff interviews, Black Asian and minority ethnicity staff have been actively recruited to sit on recruitment panels.

We scored the service a 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supported people 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.

Staff created personalised care plans to account for the patient’s needs, wishes and feelings. There was a clear pathway identified and reviewed regularly through a multidisciplinary (MDT) approach. This included length of stay, functional assessment, and rehabilitation goals, planning for ongoing support and documentation in care plans.

Care for people who are nearing the end of their life was managed and communicated in a sensitive and dignified way. Staff support patients to make decisions about their care and treatment and their future.

On the CICC ward there was a display board labelled dying matters. This included advice and guidance for patients and carers including future wishes and whether the patient wished to be resuscitated, relative and carers information for bereavement and eating and drinking at the end of life. We spoke to a patient who’s relative had sadly passed, they told us their relative was well looked after and staff were fantastic. The provider told us specialist advice is available for staff from the End-of-Life Care Lead for complex cases. There were also ongoing training opportunities for example holistic care, from recognition to death, symptom management, and advance communications skills.

Staff ensure all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies participate in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs.