Freedom from Torture Also known as Freedom from Torture

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

This means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care, supported learning and innovation, and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care. Leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles. Staff knew and understood the provider’s vision and values and how they applied to the work of their team. Staff said they felt respected, supported and valued. Governance processes operated effectively. Performance and risk were managed well. Teams had access to the information they needed to provide safe and effective care. Staff collected and analysed data about outcomes and performance. They used this to identify improvements.

We have not awarded this service a score for Well-led.

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

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Staff knew and understood the provider’s vision and values and how they were applied in the work of their team. The provider’s senior leadership team had successfully communicated the provider’s vision and values to the frontline staff in this service. Staff told us they enjoyed working at the service and were committed to providing good quality care and support to survivors of torture.

Co-production and person-centred care was embedded within the culture of the organisation. We heard of many previous patients who were now volunteers at the service.

Staff had the opportunity to contribute to discussions about the strategy for their service, especially where the service was changing.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Leaders demonstrated the skills, knowledge and experience required to perform their roles effectively. They had a clear understanding of the service they managed and were able to explain how their teams worked to deliver high-quality care and support. Leaders were visible within the service and were approachable to both staff and patients. Staff described the culture as friendly, open and supportive, and told us that leaders were responsive and easy to speak with.

Patients and staff consistently reported that leaders were accessible and engaged with the day-to-day operation of the service. However, staff told us that organisational changes and recent redundancies had adversely affected staff morale, creating uncertainty and placing additional pressures on the workforce. Staff told us they did not always feel well informed about developments affecting the service and would like greater engagement from senior leaders. These concerns had been identified through the staff pulse survey conducted in January 2026, which highlighted communication and leadership visibility as areas requiring improvement. Leaders were aware of the feedback and had developed actions to address these concerns, including measures to improve communication, engagement and staff involvement in organisational changes. Local service leaders remained visible and available to provide support to staff and patients.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Patients had opportunities to provide feedback about the service they received in ways that reflected their individual needs and preferences. Managers and staff had access to feedback from both patients and staff and used this information to drive improvements within the service. For example, feedback gathered through care reviews, surveys and service user meetings informed service developments and action planning.

Patients were actively involved in decision-making about changes to the service. The service sought and responded to feedback through regular service user meetings, where patients were encouraged to share their views and contribute to discussions about the future direction and strategy of the service. Patients told us they felt listened to and valued, and that their views were considered when changes to the service were being planned and implemented.

Patients and staff also had opportunities to meet with members of the provider’s senior leadership team to provide feedback directly.

Staff we spoke with confirmed they were able to raise concerns with the service leadership team.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them.

Staff are able to apply to work flexibly with flexible working agreements to account for personal circumstances such as caring responsibilities and health issues.

Managers put reasonable adjustments in place for staff members to help them carry out their role.

The provider carried out equality monitoring of staff within the service to ensure it was diverse in its make-up and representative of the patient group.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

Leaders worked closely and regularly with external partners. The service had good partnerships with charities, community groups, substance misuse community-based services, commissioners, local authorities and local NHS services and local businesses. These partnerships helped people access a wider range of therapeutic activities. For example, the patients at the service were able to play football sessions at Arsenal football club.

We spoke with a stakeholder who told us they were working collaboratively with the service to develop a Lived Experience Advisory Board. The stakeholder explained that the board would provide people with lived experience of the service with a formal opportunity to contribute to service development, influence future priorities and help shape service delivery. This demonstrated the service’s commitment to co-production and ensuring that the views and experiences of patients informed ongoing improvement and strategic planning.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard.

The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

The service actively took part in research and learning, including contributions at conferences on PTSD and national Journals for pain management.