Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

Patients were not always treated with kindness, dignity and respect. There were concerns that patient information was not always kept confidential. Patients were not always supported to develop independence. Staff did not always feel supported by leaders.

This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

There were activities available for patients to participate in and there was a disabled access bedroom available. Patients were supported to develop skills, such as cooking and self- administration of medication.

This service scored 60 (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 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff did not always treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Patients were not always treated with dignity and respect. For example, staff raised concerns that patient information was not always kept confidential. We did not see action taken to address these concerns. Failure to act on concerns relating to a patient’s personal information is a breach of confidentiality.

We attended a morning meeting, which was structured and chaired by a member of staff. A plan for the day was discussed, including activities available for patients to participate in. This included activities such as a relaxation class, making bracelets and playing pool. We observed staff interacting with patients and staff were observed to be friendly and supportive.

Patients we spoke with told us that staff treated them with kindness and respect. One patient we spoke with told us staff were “lovely.”

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Managers made appropriate adjustments for disabled patients. There was an accessible bedroom on the ground floor with appropriate aids to support patients. This is important to support patients with their personal needs and independence.

The trust had a process in place for accessing an interpreter or translation service when needed. The trust also had processes in place for patients to access chaplains and spiritual care when required. This means that patients were supported with individual needs.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff supported patients to develop independence. We saw evidence of patients engaging in volunteering activities at a local gardening project. The trust also told us that they referred patients to an education specialist when patients requested this. However during our assessment we did not see any evidence of patients engaging with this as part of their rehabilitation.

Patients we spoke with told us they were responsible for buying and preparing their own food, with support from staff where needed. Patients told us there was a choice of activities available to them throughout the week. This helped to promote independence.

Patients had access to therapeutic activities and skill development on the ward. Staff told us that patients also had the opportunity to engage in activities in the community, such as swimming. There was a suggestion box for patients to provide feedback. There was information available to patients on sexual safety, rights for informal patients, smoking cessation, spirituality and equality diversity and inclusion.

Patients had access to section 17 leave. Most patients we spoke with did not have any problems with accessing leave. However, 2 patients told us that their leave had been cancelled due to staff shortages. Two patients we spoke with told us they had more freedom at 439 Ipswich Road than they had on other wards. Access to section 17 leave is important, as it helps patients prepare for their transition to the community.

In care records we reviewed we found evidence of patients being supported with self-administration of medication and budgeting to help promote independence.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress

Managers ensured that people's needs were responded to. Observation protocols were embedded. We reviewed patient observation records and found that hourly checks were completed and appropriately recorded.

Physical interventions were not used at 439 Ipswich Road. There were no incidents of seclusion, restraint or rapid tranquilisation.

Staff told us that patients were able to engage in activities off the ward. For example, swimming sessions or cinema trips could be arranged if requested.

We scored the service as 1. The evidence showed significant shortfalls. The service did not care about or promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Leaders did not support staff. We received mixed feedback from staff at 439 Ipswich Road about leaders. Some staff told us managers at 439 Ipswich Road were not always approachable. This had an impact on morale.

Staff felt there was a lack of presence from senior leaders at the trust. Staff did not receive regular supervision or appraisals. The trust have put an action plan in place to address this. Regular supervision is needed to support staff in their roles.

However, some staff told us they felt respected and valued by local managers. One staff member told us that managers at 439 Ipswich Road had been accommodating and had supported them with their additional needs.