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

We rated Caring as good because: We spoke with 13 patients on the ward and 8 relatives and carers. Patients reported that staff were friendly and treated them well. We observed positive interactions between staff and patients during our onsite assessment. Carers reported that staff were mostly respectful and polite towards them and their loved ones. Patients could provide feedback to staff about the service on the ward through weekly community meetings.

However, whilst patients’ said staff were mostly discreet, respectful, and responsive. Patients told us that staff did not always respect their privacy. Patients said that staff rarely knocked on their bedroom door before entering. Staff did not always promote patients’ choice and control when it came to planning their care. Patients reported that they had a care plan, but they did not feel involved in planning their care. If patients did receive a copy of their care plan, these were too long. The trust had plans in place to improve patients’ care plans.

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 did not look at Kindness, compassion and dignity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We spoke with 13 patients across the wards and 8 relatives and carers. Whilst patients’ said staff were kind, respectful, and responsive. Patients told us that staff did not always respect their privacy. All patients said staff rarely knocked on bedroom doors and one patient said they had made a complaint to the service. A carer told us that observations at night time were very disruptive and always woke their relative up, impacting on their sleep time. Whilst patients told us they had a care plan, they were not involved in creating the care plan and updating it. Patients also said they did not have a copy of their care plan, patients said they were given their care plan to sign but had no input. Patients said staff treated them well and behaved kindly. Patients said staff were willing to listen and that they felt respected. 10 said that staff were respectful and polite. 8 patients said they had a good relationship with staff and staff behaved correctly towards them, patients said they had better relationships with some staff more than others. Patients told us they were supported to maintain relationships and networks outside of the hospital and they had regular contact with their family and friends. Patients confirmed they had an advocate and knew how to access them. Patients had also been given information about their rights. Patients on Aurora ward told us they had opportunities to develop independence skills such as taking their medicines independently, cooking and budgeting.

Staff spoke with understanding, compassion and empathy when talking about the patients they were caring for. Staff discussed optimism for patients’ recovery. Staff told us that patients had access to information about advocacy. Staff said they sought patients consent before sharing information. Staff said patients had access to information about medication, side effects, treatment, and recovery plan. Patients were involved in decisions about their care and treatment, in ward rounds, CPA meetings and tribunals.

During the assessment, we observed that staff were visible and engaging with patients to support them with day-to-day tasks. On Aurora ward, patients and staff were friendly and welcoming, we observed patients and staff greeting each other and interacting. On Forest ward, staff were observed playing pool and interacting with patients

Care plans lacked patient voice and were very long. Patients’ input was recorded on the Recovery star – My shared pathway, some had detailed patient involvement and some very minimal. Patients were able to raise concerns or suggestions about the service directly to staff, through regular ward meetings or by using the patient feedback form. Staff facilitated weekly community meetings with patients. The minutes of these were displayed in the communal noticeboard for patients to have easy access. We looked at the minutes of these meetings and patients fed back about occupational therapy, staff issues and maintenance and repairs.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.