Freedom from Torture Also known as Freedom from Torture

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

At our last assessment we rated responsive as good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

The design, layout, and furnishings of the service supported patients’ treatment, privacy and dignity. The service met the needs of all patients – including those with a protected characteristic. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the result.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

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

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The provider ensured people were consistently at the centre of their care and support. Staff planned and delivered care around what mattered most to each individual which demonstrated a highly personalised, flexible and responsive approach.

Care was delivered in a person-centred way, with patients actively involved in their care and supported through coordinated, holistic, and responsive approaches.
We observed that staff were open, approachable, and committed to delivering person-centred care. Staff demonstrated a willingness to provide good support and showed dedication to meeting the individual needs of patients.

Patient’s cultural, religious and spiritual needs were proactively understood and thoughtfully supported, to ensure care was meaningful and aligned with what was important to them. The service had a dedicated prayer room and shower.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Patients confirmed they had access to education and work opportunities.

Staff supported patients to access a range of health, education and social care services through advice, advocacy and signposting. The service also provided access to legal and welfare support to help patients address wider issues affecting their wellbeing. The welfare team offered practical assistance to patients experiencing difficulties with benefits and financial payments, accessing healthcare appointments, housing concerns or situations of destitution.

Staff worked closely with patients to help them navigate these challenges, advocate on their behalf where appropriate and ensure they were connected with relevant external services and support networks. This holistic approach helped patients to address both their health and social care needs.

Staff communicated with patients’ GPs when they were being discharged from the service. For example, we saw letters sent to GPs outlining the follow up care that was required from them.

Staff supported patients to access their chosen place of worship within the community.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service accepted patients after conducting a thorough assessment, to determine if their needs could be met. The service was accessible to patients with disabilities/mobility difficulties. A lift was available as were ground floor therapy rooms. The garden was accessible for all patients using the service.

Patients could access the service in a way that suited their needs, either in person or virtually. Appointment times were flexible to accommodate both clinicians’ and patients’ availability. For virtual appointments, patients were required to attend their first session in person. The service supported patients with IT equipment and mobile data where required.

The service had access to interpreters when required. Written information could also be translated if a patient’s first language was not English.

Staff ensured patients had access to post-discharge care. For example, community mental health services, education, housing, employment, welfare benefits and crisis services. Records showed that staff planned for patients’ discharge, including good liaison with care co-ordinators.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views.

Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights. Training compliance was at 100%.

Staff and leaders listened to information about people who might be at greater risk of poor outcomes and adapted care to reduce this.

Patient’s wellbeing was supported through a range of meaningful, inclusive activities tailored to individual needs, preferences and abilities. These opportunities helped promote emotional, social and physical wellbeing to ensure people were not only safe but able to enjoy fulfilling experiences and achieve positive outcomes in their daily lives. For example, the service ran a gardening and art group.

Staff maintained patient confidentiality. Staff understood the individual needs of patients. The service assigned interpreters to patients based on their gender, ethnicity needs and were culturally sensitive.

Staff also provided patients with the choice of a chaperone during health assessments.