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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care. Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness. They respected patients’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of patients and supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff involved patients in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with young people showed that they were friendly, respectful and responsive, providing young people with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. We observed positive and kind interactions between staff and young people on our visit.

The service ensured that young people using the service were supported by staff in an appropriate manner, treated them with kindness and understood their individual needs.

Staff supported young people to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff provided one-to-one sessions with young people to go through their risk assessments, care plan and options for therapeutic activities. Staff supported young people to engage in meaningful activities.

Staff understood the individual needs of young people, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. Staff supported young people to maintain and develop their social skills and met their needs through various activities and tools.

Staff followed the trust policy to keep young people’s information confidential. Information held on electronic systems was protected. Paper records were held in the nursing station which was kept locked.

Young people said staff treated them well, were kind, respectful and available when they needed support, most young people said they felt safe on the ward. Carers we spoke with said staff were welcoming, and they were treated with kindness and respect.

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.

The service met the needs of young people who used the service, including those with protected characteristics. Staff helped young people with communication, advocacy and cultural and spiritual support.

The service displayed information, including advocacy, clearly on noticeboards on all the wards.

The service had access to translators and signers for any young person whose first language was not English. They worked with individuals to provide accessible information.

Young people had access to appropriate spiritual support. The wards had access to the trust’s chaplaincy service, the chaplain regularly visited the wards and supported with activities. The wards had multi-faith rooms which had been decorated by the young people with different religious symbols.

Young people had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances. However young people said they did not enjoy the food, some young people said they did their own food shopping or family members would bring food to the ward for them.

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 young people to understand and be involved in their own care and treatment. Young people we spoke to told us that they were involved in their care plans with staff, they had a copy of their care plan and that they were reviewed regularly.Young people said they were able to give their opinions and suggestions.

Staff within the service had a good understanding of young people’s mental health, their risk history and their social circumstances outside the hospital. Occupational therapists and activity co-ordinators supported young people to pursue their interests and hobbies.Young people were encouraged to attend onsite education.

Staff ensured young people could access information on their rights and how to complain. Information about the Mental Health Act and making complaints was displayed on the ward. Young people were supported to understand their rights by using different ways to communicate, the ward had easy read documents available for people that used them.

On Poplar Unit young people had access to a beverage bay in the dining area, where they could get hot and cold drinks and snacks. Access to the kitchen was individually risk assessed. Young people on Longview and Larkwood had access to cold drinks and snacks in the dining room; to make hot drinks young people were supported by staff to access the kitchen, signs were displayed in the dining area explaining this.

Young people had access to their own mobile phones, there was a mobile phone policy and contract that was shared with young people on admission. Wards had quiet rooms available for young people to use at any time.

Young people had access to outside space, there was open access to gardens throughout the day on Larkwood and Longview. On Poplar Unit young people required support from staff to access the garden as they needed to go down a stairwell which could not be left open due to risk, a member of staff on each shift was allocated to garden access.

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.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, such as self-harm, vulnerability or violence towards others and care planned for these accordingly.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, young people. There was a good staff presence on the ward’s during the inspection. Staff were engaging with young people and noticed and responded to any change in risks.

Staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when a young person’s behaviour became heightened. We reviewed young people’s records and incident logs, these included evidence of de-escalation attempts being used before physical interventions.

We observed interactions between staff and people who used the service and saw that these relationships were caring and compassionate, enabling staff to anticipate and meet people’s needs quickly and in ways that reduced and mitigated people’s discomfort and distress. A young person told us staff were mindful of their privacy and confidentiality and always knocked on their door. Young people said they felt able to raise concerns with staff and the ward managers.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Staff felt positive and proud working for the service and their team.

Staff had access to chaplaincy and spiritual care, which provided for the spiritual and religious wellbeing needs of staff.

Adjustments were made for staff to support them in their roles. This included reasonable adjustments to working patterns, implementing a flexible working pattern, alongside adjusting staff duties if there were any changes to their physical health.

The service had an employee wellbeing offer for staff. This included an employee assistance programme, psychological support, fast track physiotherapy, post-incident support and occupational health.

The service displayed thank you cards received from former patients and their relatives/carers, as well as from student nurses who had completed their placements on the ward. The celebration and successes for individuals and the whole team were also shared trust wide via internal communication articles. The trust had staff recognition awards which included peer to peer recognition and team recognition awards, staff could also send each other e-cards.

Staff could attend reflective practice sessions, staff had access to freedom to speak up guardians.

Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported.