1. Purpose and background
This engagement sought to understand people’s experiences of Community Mental Health (CMH) services across mid and south Essex, including what they value, what supports positive experiences, and where the journey could feel clearer, more consistent or easier to navigate.
A mixed‑methods survey was used, combining closed questions, multiple‑choice responses and free‑text insight. The findings aim to strengthen equity, align pathways, embed co‑production, and ensure services feel accessible and person‑centred across the area.
2. Who responded
A total of 236 people who had accessed Community Mental Health Services in the past 12 months (or supported someone who had) formed the analytical base. Respondents represented a broad mix: 59.8% service users; 18.8% carers/family members; 20.1% both service user and carer roles
People shared experiences across a wide range of pathways, including Talking Therapies, Recovery College, Mental Health Practitioners in Primary Care, IPS, Healthy Minds, Depression & Wellbeing Calls and PHSMI checks.
Respondents reflected a broad demographic spread across:
- Geography: Responses were received from all MSE districts, including Basildon, Chelmsford, Castle Point, Colchester, Southend, Thurrock, Harlow and others. Experience varied by area, highlighting the importance of a more consistent Essex‑wide offer.
- Age: Highest representation was from the 35–64 age bands.
- Gender: Majority women, with smaller proportions of men and very small non‑binary representation.
- Disability / LTC: A high proportion reported living with a disability or long‑term condition.
- Ethnicity: Most respondents identified as White British, with small numbers from minority ethnic groups (too small for firm conclusions).
3. Overall experience of services
When asked to rate their experience of CMH services. Experience scores averaged 2.95 out of 5, equivalent to “Fair”. Ratings ranged from Excellent to Extremely Poor, reflecting a range of experiences.
4. What people value
Across both quantitative and qualitative feedback, people frequently described the following strengths:
- Strong therapeutic and interpersonal relationships: Respondents highlighted staff empathy, understanding and kindness.
- High‑quality support once accessed: People valued clear, structured and personalised support.
- Flexibility of format: Options across face‑to‑face, online and telephone were appreciated where they represented real choice.
- Groups and community support: Recovery College, groups and wellbeing activities were described as helpful in reducing isolation and supporting confidence and motivation.
These strengths provide a solid foundation on which the CMH Programme can continue to build.
5. Key challenges identified
Long Waiting Times (most dominant theme)
- 157 selections in quantitative data and 72 written comments referenced waiting.
- People described long waits (often many months), limited updates, and uncertainty about next steps.
- Many said they felt “forgotten” while waiting.
Access to Services
- Difficulties navigating referrals and accessing appropriate support were commonly reported.
- Some found it hard to understand how to get help, especially when not feeling well.
Limited Therapy Options and Personalisation
- Many people expressed a desire for more therapy types beyond a single model, particularly for trauma, neurodivergence or more complex needs.
- 89 comments referenced therapy choice.
Communication Difficulties
- People reported unclear or infrequent updates, difficulty contacting teams, and unpredictable information about timelines.
Continuity, Transitions and Follow‑Up
- Respondents described having to repeat their story, abrupt endings, and unclear transitions between services or teams.
Format of Support (digital vs face‑to‑face)
- While digital options were valued by some, others found telephone‑only or online‑only formats difficult to engage with.
Neurodiversity and Trauma‑Informed Practice
- People emphasised the need for communication adjustments, sensory considerations, and pacing that supports neurodivergent or trauma‑related needs.
6. Opportunities for future service development
Support people while they wait
- Regular, compassionate updates; realistic timelines; light‑touch wellbeing support.
Expand therapy and support choice
- Increased therapeutic modalities and shared decision‑making around format.
Improve communication
- Clearer pathways, predictable updates, accessible contact routes.
Enhance continuity and transitions
- Minimising staff changes where possible, clearer handovers, and optional follow‑up after discharge.
Embed inclusive, neurodivergent‑informed and trauma‑informed practice
- Adjustments to communication, sensory needs and pacing.
Ensure consistency across Essex
- A more equitable offer across localities, supporting standardised pathways and reduced fragmentation.
7. Overall summary
The engagement paints a balanced picture:
- Support itself is highly valued, with empathy, personalisation and clear therapeutic structure central to positive experience.
- The journey into and through services is more challenging, especially around waiting times, communication, therapy choice, neurodivergent/trauma‑informed practice and transitions.
- Locality and demographic variation highlight opportunities to strengthen equity and consistency across the CMH model.
These insights offer a strong, person‑centred foundation for ongoing CMH pathway alignment and service development.