Updated 18 March 2024
Our rating of this service stayed the same. We rated it as good because:
- The service provided safe care. The clinical premises where clients were seen were safe and clean. The service had enough staff. Staff assessed and managed risk well 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 clients and in line with national guidance about best practice. Staff engaged in clinical audit to evaluate the quality of care they provided.
- The teams included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of clients under their care. Managers ensured that these staff received training, supervision, and appraisals. Staff worked well together as a multidisciplinary team and relevant services outside the organisation.
- Staff treated clients with compassion and kindness and understood the individual needs of clients. They actively involved clients in decisions and care planning.
- The service was easy to access. Staff planned and managed discharge well and had alternative pathways for people whose needs it could not meet.
- The service was well led, and the governance processes ensured that its procedures ran smoothly.
What people who use the service say
Feedback from clients was generally positive. They described staff as caring, friendly, supportive, and told us they went above and beyond to care for them.
They described how the service created a “healing environment” and how they have the autonomy to come and go as they please, enabling them to transition into the community.
One client told us it was difficult to contact the local GP and were having trouble arranging appointments. They explained how staff supported them to do so as well as making follow up calls. Clients told us staff supported them to attend external meetings and access community appointments.
Clients told us they felt safe, although some told us, they would prefer staff to be present on site 24 hours a day, as this was when clients were more likely to relapse. Nevertheless, they said staff reassured them about any anxieties they had around their treatment. One client described how staff had put them at ease prior to admission, explaining the treatment and support they would receive whilst residing at the service.
Clients knew how to raise complaints, provide compliments, and provide feedback to the service. All clients we spoke to, explained they had never made a complaint or had any reason to do so. Clients confirmed that daily check in sessions with staff went ahead as planned.
Clients explained how staff listened to them and are responsive to their views and wishes. They described how staff gave them advice on their care and treatment in an accessible and clear manner.
Clients spoke positively about how hard staff worked but felt that the service would benefit from more staff.
Some clients felt that there could be more individual or group sessions at the service. Clients told us these sessions did not always go ahead due to staff shortages. They also said that some staff were more confident in delivering group sessions than others. We also received feedback that the questionnaires used in one-to one sessions could be overly prescriptive with client’s feelings. A better design would provide a more honest and productive sessions.