Aspire Havering

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

This is the first assessment for this service. This service has been rated as good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect, and involved as partners in their care.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

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

We scored the service as 3. The evidence shows a good standard of care. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

During the inspection, we spoke with 5 clients and 2 carers.
We saw evidence in care records that staff provided compassionate, person-centred care which respected the dignity and individuality of each client. Individuals were encouraged to actively participate in decisions about their care and treatment. Clients we spoke with told us staff supported them in a non-judgmental environment where they were able to discuss their goals and challenges openly.

People described staff as supportive, responsive and easy to talk to, and said they felt able to raise questions or concerns. One client described the care and treatment they received as “life-changing and lifesaving” and said their recovery worker had been a “great mentor”. Another client told us they would not be here without the care and support they had received from their recovery coordinator. People told us the support had helped them make positive changes in their lives, including returning to work.

The service offered both one-to-one support and group programmes, which clients told us helped them build peer support networks and remain engaged in their recovery. However, some people said they would value the return of group support, such as the women’s group, which had been paused at times due to staff sickness.

Staff supported clients to understand and manage their care, treatment, and condition. Care records showed that staff signposted clients to other services when appropriate and supported them to access these services, promoting a holistic approach to care. Clients also told us staff supported their physical health, including referrals to GPs and specialist services, and encouragement to adopt healthier lifestyles.

Feedback from clients and carers was overwhelmingly positive. Staff were described as “amazing”, “helpful”, “professional”, “respectful”, “understanding”, and “non-judgemental”. The service had received over 30 compliments between 1 September 2025 and 27 January 2026, reflecting the high regard in which staff were held by clients and carers.

We also saw evidence that the service engaged positively with external partners and stakeholders, including through regular case coordination meetings and joint working. Staff demonstrated a caring, respectful, and person-centred approach and advocated strongly for clients. All staff we spoke with expressed a clear commitment to client-centred care and provided examples of supporting clients beyond their clinical needs, including with housing, volunteering opportunities, and transitions between services. Staff also supported clients with practical aspects of their care, including medication safety, home environment assessments, discharge planning, and meeting wider social needs.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, goals, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff understood and met people’s personal, cultural, social, religious, and equality needs. Care was delivered in a way that respected individual preferences and promoted inclusion. Staff ensured that communication needs were considered so that clients could be involved in decisions about their care and treatment.

The service demonstrated flexibility in how care was delivered. Clients were able to access appointments at times that suited their needs, including some out-of-hours support. Staff prioritised individuals based on risk, with high-risk clients receiving timely and responsive care. Joint home visits were carried out where appropriate, particularly for clients with higher levels of need, ensuring coordinated support with other professionals.

The service provided access to a range of additional support options to meet individual needs. Clients could attend the hub, which offered peer support and self-help opportunities. They were also able to access extended counselling and talking therapies, such as cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), to support their recovery and mental wellbeing. Clients who had completed, or were nearing the end of, their treatment told us they felt confident they could access the service again if needed.

Clients told us the service was accessible and responsive. One client said they were able to walk in without an appointment and were seen by staff, which helped them access support when they needed it. However, some people said it was not always easy to contact the service by telephone at certain times. Another client told us that English was not their first language and that staff took time to explain information clearly by breaking it down for them, however, no interpreter was offered. The absence of interpretation services may limit accessibility for some clients.

Overall, staff treated people as individuals and tailored care to meet their diverse needs, although access and communication arrangements could be improved to ensure all people can contact the service and fully engage with support.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff offered clients alternative treatment options where they were unable to engage with specific interventions. This included access to Opioid Substitution Therapy (OST), alcohol support, and prescribed medications such as chlordiazepoxide to support detoxification and reduce cravings.

Staff signposted clients to a range of community-based support services, including mutual aid groups and psychosocial interventions. Clients were also supported by accessing local activities to promote independence, health, and wellbeing.
Staff supported and enabled clients to have choice and control over their care, encouraging them to make informed decisions about their treatment and recovery

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

The service responded appropriately to people’s immediate and changing needs. Care records showed that staff identified and managed specific risks, including physical and mental health concerns, and developed care plans to address these. Staff made referrals to other healthcare services, such as local mental health teams, when required.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, clients. For example, where clients had children at home or were pregnant, staff involved social services and local authority safeguarding teams to ensure appropriate support and protection.

We saw evidence that staff routinely encouraged clients at risk of opioid overdose to take naloxone home, to reduce the risk of death. Staff told us that approximately 90% of clients had access to naloxone, a life-saving medication that reverses opioid overdoses. The remaining clients were described as clinically stable, receiving regular treatment at optimal doses.
Multidisciplinary team meetings demonstrated a clear focus on reviewing clients’ changing needs and risks, with appropriate action plans developed to respond promptly.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care. However, some staff reported they did not feel valued.

Most staff we spoke with provided positive feedback about the leadership of the service and told us they felt well supported by their local management team. Staff said they had access to support for their physical and emotional wellbeing, including occupational health services and the Access to Work programme.

Staff also had access to reflective practice sessions, which focused on shared learning and the practical application of motivational techniques. The service had recently introduced a dedicated reflective practice space, “Getting Unstuck”, providing a protected environment for staff to reflect on their work and discuss challenges. These sessions were held fortnightly and facilitated by the central learning and development team.

Staff feedback identified several key themes about wider organisational support. Staff told us that strategic communication from senior leadership was limited, and they did not always feel involved in decisions about the direction of the service. Career progression pathways were described as unclear, and some staff reported they did not feel valued at an organisational level. Staff told us their most significant concerns related to staffing levels, workload, and capacity. Five of 18 staff told us that they felt pressure on existing resources, which may impact on service delivery and staff morale. While most staff felt valued by clients and supported by their immediate team and managers, some staff told us they did not always feel valued by the wider organisation.