Aspire Havering

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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good.
This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

The service was managed by a leadership team responsible for ensuring that care is delivered safely and effectively. The leadership team worked to maintain clear governance processes and ensure staff were appropriately trained and supported to deliver substance misuse treatment.

The service promoted partnership working with local organisations, including healthcare providers, criminal justice agencies, and social services, to improve outcomes for individuals accessing treatment. Leaders worked to create a culture focused on recovery, safety, and continuous improvement. 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 described a strong and supportive team culture, with many reporting that the team was “close-knit” and worked collaboratively to support clients. Equality and diversity were valued within the service and reflected in the staff group. Staff felt able to raise concerns through a range of forums, including morning meetings, MDT discussions, and with team managers. Staff told us they have an open culture with their peers and line managers.

Staff reported that strategic communication from senior leadership was limited. Five of the 18 staff we spoke to told us they did not always feel involved in the wider direction of the service and did not feel valued by the wider organisation. This impacted their sense of ownership and engagement despite feeling appreciated by clients and immediate colleagues and line managers.

Staff told us that funding constraints may impact programme delivery and opportunities for service development, which could affect the service’s ability to meet future needs. The service manager told us that, despite these constraints, the service had secured additional funding for the next three years alongside its core funding. The service received 100% of the funding requested.
The service manager told us the service had a strong working relationship with local commissioners and was valued. They explained that the additional funding secured may help mitigate some of the pressures staff reported in relation to programme delivery and support future service development.

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 had the skills, knowledge, and experience to perform their roles and provided effective clinical leadership to staff. They demonstrated a good understanding of the services they managed and were able to clearly explain how teams were working to deliver high-quality care.

Leaders were visible within the service and approachable to both staff and clients. Staff spoke positively about their immediate managers and described local leadership as supportive and accessible in their day-to-day work.

Staff told us there was a culture of psychological safety within teams. This was supported through regular supervision and reflective practice, which enabled staff to discuss challenges and share learning. Leadership development opportunities were available, including for staff not currently in management roles. One staff we spoke to told us of career progression pathways and access to development opportunities.

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.

The service had policies and procedures in place to support whistleblowing and speaking up. Staff had access to these policies, they explained the process and generally felt able to raise concerns without fear of reprisal.

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.

The service promoted equality, diversity, and inclusion within the workforce. Equality and diversity champions were in place, and information displayed on notice boards supported an inclusive environment, including awareness of LGBTQ+ communities, protected characteristics, and neurodiversity.

Staff were able to work flexibly to accommodate personal circumstances, such as caring responsibilities and health needs. Managers implemented reasonable adjustments to support staff in carrying out their roles effectively.
The provider undertook equality monitoring to ensure the workforce was diverse and reflective of the client group. Staff told us that the service had evolved over time to adopt a recovery-focused approach, delivered at the pace of the client and underpinned by motivational interviewing and trauma-informed care.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and share this securely with others when appropriate.

The service had governance systems in place to support oversight, learning, and continuous improvement. We reviewed Information Governance Team Meeting (IGTM) minutes for the months of October 2025 and November 2025. Meetings were held every six weeks and attended by senior management. These meetings included discussions on incidents, learning, and key policies such as information governance and changes to the e-learning system. Scenario-based learning was also incorporated, with recent discussions including an aggressive incident and an accident to support staff learning.

There were systems and procedures in place to ensure the service was safe and well managed. Staff were trained, skilled, and experienced to meet the needs of clients. Staff assessed clients appropriately, adhered to the Mental Capacity Act, and managed care pathways effectively, including discharge planning.
The service maintained a risk register at both team and directorate level, which had recently been migrated to a new online system and updated at the time of inspection. The register included key risks such as synthetic opioids, staff wellbeing and safety, prescription management, and safeguarding. Staff we spoke with were aware of these risks and told us they could escalate concerns appropriately. Risks identified by staff were reflected in the risk register, showing alignment between frontline concerns and governance oversight. However, most risks recorded were broad and focused on overarching organisational risks, rather than specific issues within the service, such as environmental concerns including water damage and mould.

Business continuity plans were in place and provided guidance for staff in emergency situations, including adverse weather, fire or security incidents, loss of premises or IT systems, and health outbreaks.
The service used systems to collect and monitor data, including audits of data quality and submissions. Information governance systems ensured the confidentiality of client records. Monthly performance and quality meetings were held to review service delivery and monitor performance against key performance indicators set by commissioners. Managers had access to relevant and timely information to support their roles, including data on service performance, staffing, and client care. Information was accessible, accurate, and used to identify areas for improvement.

The leaders were aware of shortfalls in some of areas in which they captured data and they were working to improve this, for example, the managers explained that there were some areas within their reporting that did not accurately reflect the service performance, particularly the figures relating to the number of people shown as waiting to be assessed and overall waiting times. The system data did not fully reflect service users’ progression, meaning some individuals may have been further along in support or treatment than the records showed.

We scored the service as 3. Evidence shows a good standard of care. The service understood its duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement.

The service demonstrated a clear understanding of its responsibility to work in partnership with other agencies to deliver coordinated care. Information and learning were consistently shared with a range of partners, including hospitals, GPs, probation services, and mental health services.

The service actively engaged in community initiatives and partnership working to improve outcomes and reduce harm. For example, following the identification of a gap in provision, the service developed a clinical pathway to support clients to continue alcohol detoxification in the community after discharge from the hospital. The service also developed a standard operating procedure (SOP) for community opiate detoxification and enhanced its needle exchange offer by incorporating harm minimisation interventions at the point of contact.

The service maintained strong links with partner agencies and third sector organisations to support joined-up care and improve access and engagement for clients. Leaders demonstrated active engagement with stakeholders through regular meetings and forums, including the Integrated Offender Management Panel, Reducing Offending Partnership meetings, multi-agency public protection arrangements, prison continuity of care arrangements, the Drug Intervention Programme, the Havering Suicide Prevention Steering Group, hospital alcohol liaison meetings, and the quarterly Hepatitis C partnership meeting.

There were clear arrangements for working with internal and external teams to meet clients’ needs. Staff also contributed to wider system learning through participation in drug-related death panels, harm reduction groups, and Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference meetings, supporting coordinated responses to risk.

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 demonstrated a commitment to learning, innovation, and improving outcomes for clients. Staff described a positive learning culture, supported through both facilitation and active participation. For example, staff were involved in reflective work linked to the alcohol and community detoxification project. Workshops explored reasons for disengagement and relapse, identifying gaps in pre-detox preparation. This learning informed improvements in pre-detox planning and support.

Staff implemented recommendations from reviews of incidents, deaths, complaints, and safeguarding alerts.
The service undertook regular clinical audits, and findings were used to improve practice. Staff understood how to report incidents, manage complaints, and make safeguarding referrals. Managers shared learning through structured meetings with clear agendas and standing items, ensuring consistent discussion and continuous improvement.