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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

Patients were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Patients were supported with developing independence. Most staff we spoke with told us they felt supported by leaders.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 70 (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.

Patients were treated with dignity and respect. Patients told us staff were friendly, respectful and approachable. One patient described staff as “lovely”. Patients regularly met with their named worker. One patient told us extra female staff were brought in on shift to support female patients if needed.

We observed staff interacting with patients and found staff were friendly and caring in their interactions.

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.

There were processes in place to meet patients’ individual communication needs. Communication needs were assessed on admission to the service. Leaders told us they had access to information in audio, braille and easy read. The trust also had a process to access an interpreter if needed.

Staff provided patients with a welcome pack on admission to the service. This explained the process of admission and information about life on the ward, including leave, visiting and safety on the ward.

Managers made appropriate adjustments for disabled patients. There was a disabled access bedroom and bathroom on the ground floor with appropriate mobility aids. This supported patients to maintain their independence.

Staff ensured patients had access to information, including information on their rights, Mental Health Act, how to make a complaint, sexual safety and safeguarding.

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 and skills that would be required before they were discharged from the service. Patients were responsible for buying and cooking their own food, with the support of staff. We reviewed community meeting minutes and found staff encouraged patients to buy food and cook.

Patients told us there were a range of activities available to them during the week. This included dog therapy, baking, cooking, exercise sessions, relaxation and art. In addition, patients were able to access activities in the community, such as swimming and exercise. We observed staff interacting with patients and playing board games during our inspection.

Staff supported patients to access the wider community. There were volunteering opportunities, such as the “Big Garden Project.” This enabled patients to develop work related skills and improve physical wellbeing, whilst encouraging social and community engagement.

Patients detained under the Mental Health Act were able to access section 17 leave. Patients told us there were no issues when accessing leave.

However, at the time of our inspection, no patients were involved in paid employment, education or training. Leaders told us this was due to the current needs of the patient group, however education and employment opportunities would be considered when individual care plans were developed. We found that volunteering opportunities had been discussed with patients.

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.

Processes were in place to ensure safe and supportive observations were completed. We reviewed observation records and found observations were completed in line with policy. Observation records showed that hourly observations were completed and appropriately recorded.

We reviewed community meeting minutes and found staff communicated with patients. For example, patients were asked what cooking activity they would like to do, or where they would like to go on a trip in the community. Patients told us they could speak to staff if they had any concerns or needed support. Patient’s had access to an independent mental health advocate.

There were no incidents of seclusion, restraint or rapid tranquilisation.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

We received mixed feedback from staff at 439 Ipswich Road. Some staff did not feel supported by managers and morale fluctuated. Other staff felt supported by managers. Some staff felt respected and said leaders were visible in the service. One staff member stated leaders were “visible, assertive and warm”.

Staff received regular support through supervision and appraisals.