St Andrew's Healthcare - Essex

Updated 9 March 2026

We inspected St Andrews Healthcare – Essex on 01 October and 15 October 2025.

This service was last inspected in March 2023 and was rated requires improvement overall. At that inspection, we found some issues with access to education and work opportunities, the recovery model of care, staffing and mandatory training. This was a breach of regulation 9 HSCA (RA) Regulations 2014 Person-centred care and Regulation 12 HSCA (RA) Regulations 2014 Safe care and treatment.

During this inspection, we inspected long stay rehabilitation services for working-age adults, where we assessed 32 quality statements.

We rated the service as good. We found no breaches of regulations.

Updated 2 September 2025

The assessment of long stay or rehabilitation mental health wards took place on 01 October and 15 October 2025.

We inspected one ward, Tiptree Ward. This was a 16-bedded ward for men of working age who had experienced repeated or prolonged admissions to hospital. The service aimed to support people to engage in off-site activities, with the ultimate aim of discharge. At the time of our inspection, 16 people were using the service.

We rated the service as good. The service had made improvements and was no longer in breach of regulation. There were enough nursing and support staff on all shifts to keep patients safe. The service ensured that staff were up to date with mandatory training. Patients had the opportunity to participate in education and work opportunities in the wider community. The service had reviewed their recovery model of care.

Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Compliance Summary

The service admitted patients under the Mental Health Act 1983. Staff received and kept up to date with training on the Mental Health Act and the Mental Health Act Code of Practice and could describe the Code of Practice guiding principles. Training on the Mental Health Act was mandatory for staff, and the compliance rate was 94%.

Staff had access to support and advice on implementing the Mental Health Act and its Code of Practice. Staff received assistance from designated Mental Health Act staff.

The service had clear, accessible, relevant and up-to-date policies and procedures that reflected all relevant legislation and the Mental Health Act Code of Practice. For example, there was a process in place to monitor patient’s legal status and renewal dates, which meant staff were able to ensure reviews took place in a timely manner.

Staff explained to each patient their rights under the Mental Health Act in a way that they could understand, repeated as necessary and recorded it clearly in the patient’s record each time.

Staff made sure patients could take section 17 leave (permission to leave the ward or hospital) when this was agreed with the responsible clinician. The use of leave from the ward was agreed by the multidisciplinary team (MDT). Arrangements for leave were made at daily planning meetings and nurses carried out an assessment of each patient’s mental state before each occasion of leave was utilised.

Staff requested an opinion from a Second Opinion Appointed Doctor (SOAD) when they needed to.

Staff stored copies of patients’ detention papers and associated records correctly and staff could access them when needed.

Mental Capacity Act

Staff received and kept up to date with training in the Mental Capacity Act. Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act. The training was initially provided as part of the induction process and staff had regular refreshers.

Staff assessed and recorded capacity to consent clearly each time a person needed to make an important decision. Staff took all practical steps to enable people to make their own decisions. Staff completed an assessment on admission of each person’s capacity to consent to admission and treatment. Further assessments took place during reviews by the multidisciplinary team.

Staff knew where to get advice regarding the Mental Capacity Act, including deprivation of liberty safeguards.

Updated 20 July 2023

Our rating of this service ​improved​. We rated it as ​good because:

• Danbury ward was not clean when we visited, and patients told us that the ward was not clean.
• Training figures were below what we would expect for a safe service. Fifty seven percent of staff on Danbury ward had completed immediate life support and 56% had completed safety intervention training. The hospital target was 100%.
• On Danbury ward there was a cold drinks dispenser which was empty at the time of inspection and did not appear to be in use.
• On Danbury ward there were maintenance issues; a clothes dryer was not working, 4 showers were not working, the patient computer was being repaired and there was poor décor and graffiti on 2 pictures on the ward.
• Staff struggled to name the 5 principles of the Mental Capacity Act, although they showed a good understanding of how the Mental Capacity Act was applied in practice.

However;

• Patients had access to a nurse call system, so patients could summon help if required.
• Maldon ward was clean. Neither ward had an unpleasant smell.
• Staff maintained patient confidentiality on the wards.
• Observations were being completed at unpredictable intervals which was an improvement from the last inspection and staff were following policies and procedures. The hospital had installed a new observations system for staff to record observations in real time and managers had oversight.
• The seclusion room on Danbury ward had a functioning monitor. The seclusion room had not been used since the ward opened in January 2023.
• Patients were given feedback following complaints.

Updated 20 July 2023

Our rating of this location ​improved​. We rated it as ​good​ because:

• The service provided safe care. The ward environments were safe and clean. The wards had enough nurses and doctors. Staff assessed and managed risk well. They minimised the use of restrictive practices, managed medicines safely and followed good practice with respect to safeguarding.
• Staff developed holistic, recovery-oriented care plans informed by a comprehensive assessment. They provided a range of treatments suitable to the needs of the patients and in line with national guidance about best practice. Staff engaged in clinical audit to evaluate the quality of care they provided.
• The ward teams included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of patients on the wards. Managers ensured that these staff received training, supervision, and appraisal. The ward staff worked well together as a multidisciplinary team and with those outside the ward who would have a role in providing aftercare.
• Staff understood and discharged their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness and understood the individual needs of patients. They actively involved patients and families and carers in care decisions.
• The service was well led, and the governance processes ensured that ward procedures ran smoothly.

However:

• Wards were tired and in need of redecoration. The provider had a hospital wide renovation plan, which showed the timescales for all ward areas to undergo redecoration and renovation. Renovations were due to start in April 2023.
• Patients from Benfleet ward requiring seclusion were taken to Tiptree ward through the ward area to access seclusion, potentially not maintaining privacy and dignity.
• Staff did not always carry out observations in line with the providers policy.