CGL Sefton

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 inspection of this service. This key question has been rated as good. This means people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

Staff treated clients with compassion and kindness. They respected clients’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of clients and supported clients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff involved clients in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

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 showed a good standard. 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.

Staff were discreet, respectful and responsive when engaging with clients. We observed 4 client appointments during the inspection. In each appointment staff acted respectfully and with compassion. They provided space for individuals to discuss any concerns, give their views and opinions and contribute to decisions about their care and treatment. Staff were responsive to requests and questions that clients had and provided relevant information in an appropriate manner or format. We observed 2 meetings during the inspection where staff discussed clients where they were not present. In each instance staff discussed clients in a respectful and professional manner.

During our inspection we spoke with 5 clients and 4 carers. Feedback on staff was positive. Staff were described as kind, caring, compassionate and invested in the care they were providing. Clients told us they felt respected and valued as individuals and were empowered to contribute to their care. Three clients described their key workers as being “brilliant”. One client gave examples of when their key worker had gone “above and beyond” what they had expected in the support they provided. Another client discussed how they had sometimes been angry and aggressive early in their treatment but described how staff had managed this professionally, deescalated situations without being punitive and continued to support them. They told us that staff had “changed their life”.

Staff supported clients to understand and manage their care and treatment. Clients we spoke with gave examples of when staff had provided them with relevant information, signposted them to other services and when required, supported them to access and attend those services.

Staff followed policies and procedures to keep client information confidential. Interviews rooms in locations were soundproofed to give privacy. Client records were stored securely and computer systems were password protected.

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.

The service met the needs of all clients, including those with a protected characteristic. Staff understood and met personal, cultural, social, religious and equality needs. Care was delivered in a way that respected individual preferences.

The service could support and make adjustments for people with disabilities, communication needs or other specific needs. Staff completed home visits for clients whose health or mobility meant they could not attend on-site. Locations the service was delivered from had disabled access and facilities.

Managers made sure staff and clients had access to interpreters or signers when needed. Staff had access to translation services including face to face, telephone and document translation. In the 12 months prior to our inspection (1 May 2025 until 30 April 2026) the service had utilised translation services on 83 occasions. This included for face to face, telephone and video appointments.

Staff made sure clients could access information on treatment, local services, their rights and how to complain. Information leaflets on display in team buildings were in English, but clients and staff could request translated versions. This included easy read versions.

We observed 1 appointment with a client with mild learning disabilities and cognitive impairment. Staff engaged with them using appropriate language and materials. The appointment was paced to meet the clients need and both they and their family member were encouraged to be active participants.

The service demonstrated flexibility in how care was delivered. Clients were able to access appointments at times that suited their needs. Each location operated extended hours on specific days and opened on Saturday mornings to support attendance from clients who worked Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm. The service also operated open access drop in sessions for clients who needed them.

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 supported clients to understand their care and treatment and to be active participants in decision making. They offered clients alternative options to promote engagement with treatment and supported them to make informed choices. This included in relation to harm reduction, medication and psychosocial interventions.

The service provided Opioid Substitution Therapy (OST) to clients under the opioid pathway. The primary medication used was methadone, but the service could offer other opioid substitution medicines, such as buprenorphine and buvidal. This was discussed with clients at prescribing appointments and reviews. The service could also prescribe medications such as chlordiazepoxide to support detoxification and reduce cravings. Staff provided information on the different medications to clients to facilitate their understanding and support decision making.

Clients who did not wish to be abstinent or who were not yet at that stage of their recovery could access a needle exchange and harm reduction advice. The service ran a programme of groups and psychosocial interventions for clients who wished to engage. Psychosocial interventions were also delivered in one to one sessions where this was required or a stated preference. Where indicated, clients could also access counselling sessions.

Staff signposted clients to community-based services that promoted independence, recovery and social inclusion. Staff had a wide knowledge of support available to clients in the community including mutual aid groups, educational and vocational services, housing and financial support. The service supported social inclusion and offered a range of groups such as a breakfast club, walking groups, and arts and crafts groups.

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 client’s immediate and changing needs. Staff responded promptly to deterioration in client’s health and responded to changing risks. Staff identified these changes through regular engagement with clients, reviews of assessments and care plans and through liaison with other stakeholders such as pharmacies, GPs, safeguarding authorities and other health services. Staff had access to additional specialist teams to support this including physical health nurses, specialist outreach workers and the Think Family team.

The service operated a duty worker rota and had a drop in sessions to support clients who needed immediate help. Referrals and appointments could be prioritised based on risk and clients could be prescribed Opiate Substitution Treatment on the same day. Clients were able to access support 24/7 through a crisis line ran by the service. Clients were given information on other crisis services including mental health crisis cafes and a 24/7 mental health crisis line ran by the local NHS mental health trust.

Staff provided clients with naloxone kits. Naloxone is a medicine used in emergency treatment to reverse the life-threatening effects of an opioid overdose. Staff trained clients on the use of naloxone before issuing the kit.

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.

Staff we spoke with felt respected, supported and valued. They were positive about the service and the organisation and were proud about the work that they did. Staff described a caring and supportive culture. They were positive about managers and senior leaders within the service and gave examples of how they had been supported through both personal and professional issues.

Staff had access to wellbeing and emotional health support. There was a provider level occupational health department, an employee assistance programme and access to counselling. As well as a counselling service the employee assistance programme offered a range of support including guidance and advice for staff on issues such as legal matters and debt and financial management. Staff were given a health and wellbeing hour each week to use as they wished. Staff we spoke with had used this to take longer lunches and to finish work early. The most recent staff survey was generally positive. 40 staff had completed the survey and the average score across the questions was 6 (out of 10). The service scored highly for emotional and wellbeing support (8.3 out of 10).

Leaders recognised staff success within the service. Positive feedback received from service users, carers and other professionals was shared with staff. Feedback was shared in team meetings and supervision. The service had also introduced a Boost programme that provided a virtual noticeboard where staff could share feedback, successes and positive outcomes.

Staff were supported and kept safe when they were lone working in the community. There were lone working policies and procedures to support this process including the use of risk assessments before carrying out home visits. Staff always visited in pairs if it was the first visit to a client’s house or if the client was considered high risk.