Aspire Havering

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 responded to people’s needs in a timely and person-centred way and demonstrated flexibility in supporting people to access care and treatment. People who engaged with the service experienced positive outcomes, with the majority completing their care and treatment pathway. Systems were in place to monitor referrals, assessments and discharges to support oversight of the service and ensure people received appropriate support.

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.

Care was delivered in a person-centred way, with clients 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 clients.
Care plans were personalised and reflected clients’ strengths, goals, and recovery journeys. They included clear actions to support progress and promote positive outcomes. Daily morning briefing meetings were well-structured, professional, and focused on clients’ care and treatment, ensuring staff maintained clear oversight of individual needs.

Clients and carers told us they worked in partnership with staff to develop structured treatment plans, including care plans and relapse prevention plans. They also said they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment, and that consent and confidentiality processes were clearly explained and followed.
The service demonstrated effective multi-agency working to support person-centred care. For example, where clients with children under 18 disengaged and home visits could not be arranged, staff involved social services and the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub and requested support plans to ensure appropriate safeguarding and continued engagement.

Multidisciplinary team meetings for alcohol and opiate services were comprehensive and focused on individual client needs. Discussions included detoxification plans, medically assisted withdrawal, non-attendance, communication with GPs, completion of assessment tools such as the Severity of Alcohol Dependence Questionnaire prescribing of medications such as thiamine and vitamin B, and completion of blood tests. Where clients declined medically assisted withdrawal, staff developed harm reduction plans tailored to individual circumstances.

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.

The service demonstrated effective partnership working and supported continuity of care, enabling clients to access a wide range of services to support their recovery and wellbeing. The service had undertaken work to understand local demographics and the diverse needs of the community it served. This informed the development of services and interventions to meet the needs of the local population.

The service worked in partnership with a range of external agencies and third-sector organisations to provide integrated care. These included primary healthcare services, mental health services, and social care. The highest number of referrals to the service came from mental health services, and staff worked collaboratively with partners such as the IAIT Recovery Hub, Clinical Interface Team, and Goodmayes Hospital. The service also had a hospital liaison nurse based within the acute hospital to support transitions between hospital and community care.

The service maintained links with a local person’s service, enabling appropriate referrals where required. Clients were also signposted to additional support, including social services, mutual aid groups, and online resources, with information packs provided to support engagement.

Staff supported clients to access opportunities for employment and education as part of their recovery. Some clients had successfully gained employment with support from the service. One client told us their recovery worker had been a “great mentor” and that they felt able to raise any queries with staff, who were responsive and supportive. The client said the programme had helped them significantly, and that they had recently started a new job and felt their life was now going well. The client described the service as “really good”.

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 appropriate notifications to external bodies, including the local authority, commissioners, and the Care Quality Commission. The service also submitted treatment data regularly to the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System (NDTMS).

Staff provided clients and carers with a wide range of information to support their care and recovery. This included information on mental and physical health, safeguarding, harm reduction, psychosocial interventions, mutual aid groups, local services, patients’ rights, helplines, advocacy services, and support for friends and family. Information on smoking cessation, housing, and how to provide feedback was also available, including through “You said, we did” boards.

With appropriate consent in place, staff shared relevant information with carers and other professionals involved in clients’ care to support coordinated treatment. Information governance systems were in place to maintain the confidentiality of client records. The provider’s electronic record system enabled staff and managers to access accurate and relevant information. All staff had completed training in data protection and information security, with 100% compliance.

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 service had received two complaints in the last six months. The complaints were responded to in a timely manner, and the response included information on how to escalate concerns. No complaints had been referred to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.
Clients and carers we spoke with knew how to raise concerns or make a complaint and told us they received feedback when they did so. Complaints were managed confidentially by team leaders.

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 was generally easy to access, with flexible appointment times, including extended hours on Thursday evenings to support clients in full-time employment. Clients told us appointments were flexible, ran on time, and next-day appointments were available. Staff provided timely responses to queries, and clients and carers said they felt supported and kept informed. The service included additional services such as hospital liaison, outreach support for individuals experiencing homelessness, and integrated work with children’s social care services. This ensures that people who may face barriers to accessing treatment can still receive appropriate support.

Staff ensured the needs of clients with mobility issues were considered. Areas used to meet clients were accessible, although there were no lifts in the building, stair lifts were available where required.
Staff planned and managed discharge effectively and supported continuity of care through timely home visits and referrals to post-discharge services such as mutual aid groups and mental health services. Alternative pathways were available for clients whose needs could not be met by the service. Most clients told us they could contact the service, including by phone, in person or messaging service.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service demonstrated a commitment to equitable care and outcomes, supported by inclusive practice, structured pathways, and effective use of data. Staff were trained in equality, diversity, and inclusion.

The service demonstrated a structured pathway to support access and engagement. Referrals were received via email, telephone, or drop-in, with initial contact used to gather any missing information before triage. Following triage, clients were booked into a face-to-face induction (Steps to Recovery) appointment, where they were provided with information about the service and treatment options. Clients who chose to engage were then booked for a full assessment, including relevant health checks such as blood-borne virus (BBV) testing, before progressing to structured treatment such as key working and group interventions.

Feedback from people using the service was generally positive. Clients told us they were treated equally and without discrimination. Staff understood the importance of inclusive care and adapted their approach to support equitable experiences and outcomes. All staff had completed training in equality, diversity, inclusion, and human rights.

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.

We saw client’s records where staff supported clients to make informed decisions about their care, treatment, and future, and ensured this was shared appropriately. This included support with medication safety, home assessments, discharge planning, and practical needs such as housing, employment, and family relationships.

Care plans reflected clients’ long-term recovery goals and wider aspirations. Staff provided support beyond clinical needs, including help with housing, volunteering, and transitions between services.
Staff told us they encouraged clients to consider what mattered most to them beyond treatment, such as education, employment, and rebuilding social networks. Where appropriate, these plans were linked to community resources and mutual aid groups to support sustained recovery. We saw evidence of future planning being discussed in multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings, ensuring coordinated input from health, social care, and criminal justice services. This supported smooth transitions between services and reduced the risk of disengagement.