Freedom from Torture Also known as Freedom from Torture

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

At our last assessment we rated effective as good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

Staff assessed the needs of all patients on acceptance to the service. They developed individual treatment plans which were reviewed regularly and updated as needed. Staff provided a range of treatment and care for patients based on national guidance and best practice. Staff from different disciplines worked together as a team to benefit patients.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Effective.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

We reviewed 3 care plans and 4 health assessments during the assessment.

Staff completed a comprehensive mental and physical health assessment of the patient in a timely manner at, or soon after, admission to the service. Health assessments we reviewed were comprehensive, holistic and person centred. Doctors wrote detailed letters to people’s individual GPs outlining the assessment outcome and any further physical and mental health support required.

All referrals were reviewed at the weekly intake panel meeting, where decisions were made about the support that the service could offer. For referrals that were accepted, a formal assessment was scheduled with the patient within two weeks of acceptance. Following the assessment, the multidisciplinary team (MDT) met to discuss the patient's care and treatment plan.

Staff communicated with patients in ways that supported their understanding of their care and treatment.

Staff developed treatment plans that met the needs identified during assessment. Patients confirmed that treatment plans were personalised, holistic and recovery oriented, for example for one patient the service worked closely with the substance misuse team to support the patient.

Staff updated care plans whenever necessary to ensure they accurately reflected patients’ current needs and circumstances. Risk, welfare and safeguarding considerations were reviewed and discussed during every therapy session and were documented in patient records. Where required, care plans and risk assessments were updated promptly to reflect any changes identified through ongoing engagement with patients.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff provided a range of care and treatment interventions suitable for the patient group. The interventions were those recommended by, and were delivered in line with, guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

The service provided a range of evidence-based psychological therapies tailored to meet the individual needs of patients. Specialist trauma-focused interventions available included Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR), Narrative Exposure Therapy (NET), and Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (TF-CBT). In addition, patients had access to a broader range of therapeutic approaches, including Psychodynamic Therapy, Systemic Therapy, Integrative Psychotherapy, art, music, horticultural therapy and Group Therapies. Following a comprehensive assessment and multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussion, patients were offered interventions that were clinically appropriate, supported recovery, and promote positive mental health outcomes.

Staff actively participated in clinical audits and quality improvement initiatives. The service conducted regular audits of care records and the environment to monitor and improve quality standards. An annual internal quality assurance review was also completed by the Head of Compliance. We reviewed the audit undertaken in October 2025 and found that any identified shortfalls were supported by clear action plans, with appropriate measures in place to address and monitor improvements.

Staff were experienced and qualified and had the right skills and knowledge to meet the needs of the patient group. Experienced doctors medically assessed patients who were using the service. Patients had access to a range of other professionals at the service to support them with medico-legal documentation and welfare.

Managers provided new staff with appropriate induction.

Managers provided staff with clinical and managerial supervision (meetings to discuss case management, to reflect on and learn from practice, and for personal support and professional development) and appraisal of their work performance. Staff we spoke with confirmed they had access to regular clinical and managerial supervision.

Managers ensured that staff had access to regular team meetings.

The percentage of staff that had had an appraisal in the last 12 months was 100%.

The mandatory training programme met the needs of both patients and staff. Staff told us they felt confident in carrying out their roles and were able to apply their training effectively in practice. They were well supported to undertake any additional training required for their continuous professional development and areas of expertise. For example, staff had completed specialist training on human trafficking, delivered by an external provider, which helped enhance their knowledge and skills in identifying and responding to potential concerns.

Managers dealt with poor staff performance promptly and effectively.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Staff used recognised outcome measures and rating scales to assess, monitor and record the severity of symptoms, treatment progress and patient outcomes. The service routinely monitored care and treatment to ensure outcomes were positive, consistent and aligned with clinical standards and patient expectations.

All trauma-focused interventions were delivered using evidence-based therapies for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The service used a range of validated clinical outcome measures, including the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) and the Life Events Checklist for DSM-5 (LEC-5) to assess trauma-related symptoms and experiences. The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) was used to monitor symptoms of depression, and the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-10 (CORE-10) was used to assess psychological distress and wellbeing.

These measures were completed at assessment, reviewed every six months during treatment, and repeated at discharge to evaluate progress and treatment outcomes. This enabled staff to track changes over time, measure the effectiveness of interventions and ensure care remained responsive to patients’ needs.

Staff used audit results, incident data and patient feedback to identify areas for development and drive continuous improvement.