Wear Recovery

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good.This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

Staff managed access and flow well. The design, layout, and furnishings of the service’s premises supported clients’ treatment, privacy and dignity. Staff supported clients with activities outside the service, such as work, education and family relationships. The service met the needs of all clients – including those with a protected characteristic. Staff helped clients with communication, advocacy and cultural and spiritual support. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the result.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

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.

Staff based client care around individual needs and preferences. Staff prescribed sugar-free methadone as an alternative to the regular type for clients with diabetes. Staff told us they could arrange for changes to medicine collection times at pharmacies for clients of the Muslim faith who were observing Ramadan.

We saw evidence in care records that decisions around care and treatment were made in co-creation with the client and their carers where appropriate. We saw evidence that staff discussed discharge with clients when they were near the end of their recovery journey.

Care plans reflected the strengths and goals of clients and included actions to develop their recovery capital. Clients and carers commented that they had worked in partnership with staff to create structured treatment plans, care plans and relapse plans provided. They also commented that the service’s consent and confidentiality procedures were good and were involved in decisions about care and treatment.

Staff provided carers with clear information for supporting themselves and their loved ones. For example, staff had provided advice to a carer whose loved ones had specific needs due to a brain injury.

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.

Staff supported clients to maintain contact with their families and carers.

The service had undertaken work to understand local demographics and the diverse needs of the local community.

The service had developed partnerships with other services and third sector organisations to help meet these needs such as primary healthcare and mental health services.

Clients were signposted to other supportive services such as social services and mutual aid and provided with useful website details and information packs.

Staff supported clients with opportunities for employment and education. The service had provided clients with helpful courses such as writing skills and employment support such as ambassador courses. Some clients had been able to gain employment with the service’s help.

However, male clients we spoke with said a dedicated men’s group would be beneficial to them.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed such as the local authority and Care Quality Commission.

Information governance systems included the confidentiality of client records.

Staff ensured that clients could obtain information on treatments, local services, clients’ rights, how to complain and so on. The information provided was in a format in which the client could understand.

Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by clients.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider reported that there had been 3 complaints in the last 12 months, all of which were partially upheld. None of these complaints had been referred to the Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman.

Clients and carers we spoke with knew how to complain or raise concerns. When people complained or raised concerns, they received feedback.

Staff protected clients who raised concerns or complaints from discrimination and harassment. Complaints were dealt with on a confidential basis by a team leader.

Staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately. Staff received feedback on the outcome of investigation of complaints via team meetings, emails and during supervision sessions and acted on the findings.

Staff enabled clients to give feedback on the service they received via surveys, the provider’s complaints process or face to face during their appointments with their recovery coordinator.

Staff ensured stakeholders and other community groups could give feedback about the service and input into service delivery.

Clients were able to be involved in co-production work to support service development. Some clients became ambassadors within the service.

Staff provided carers with information about support groups and carers assessments.

Staff ensured clients had access to and information about advocacy services.

Quality Statement Score:3

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.

Staff ensured the needs of clients with mobility issues were met. The areas used to meet clients were accessible and there were lifts in the service buildings.

Staff made reasonable adjustments for disabled clients.

There was adequate medical cover, and the service could access support from mental health services.

Staff ensured clients had access to post-discharge care such as mutual aid groups and mental health services.

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 undertook outreach programmes to groups that were difficult to engage or under-represented in treatment such as ethnic communities, LGBT+ communities and people who sell sex.

The service had flexible opening times to support access for clients in full time employment. Each of the 4 service hubs had extended hours on Wednesday nights for late appointments.

Clients and carers said they were kept updated and they had support 24 hours a day, including an online chat facility. Staff provided timely responses to queries, and it was easy to get through to the service by telephone. Appointments were flexible, ran on time and there were next-day appointments available.

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.

The provider had undertaken equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage.

Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights and compliance rates were 100%.

The service considered and addressed barriers to access for specific communities and those with protected characteristics by analysing feedback and using it to improve. The provider had an equality and diversity policy in place which was accessible to all staff within the service.

In the last 12 months, 495 out of 2,315 clients had successfully completed their care and treatment. This equated to 21% of clients overall.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Staff supported clients to make decisions about their care and treatment and their future.

Clients who had completed detoxification were able to access 6 emotional stabilisation sessions to further help them maintain their recovery.

Staff created personalised care plans to account for the client’s needs, wishes and feelings.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs.

Staff supported clients to create and review crisis and relapse plans.

The service’s contract was commissioned in July 2021, with an original contract length of 5 years plus a possible 2-year extension. The original contract was due to end on 30 June 2026, but commissioners recently confirmed a 2-year extension to this. This meant the contract was due to continue until 30 June 2028. Due to the length of time remaining, no preparations for re-tendering had been required at the time of our inspection.