CGL Sefton

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 inspection of this service. This key question has been rated as good. This means people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

The design, layout, and furnishings of the services supported clients’ treatment, privacy and dignity. Staff supported clients with activities outside the services. The service met the needs of all clients, including those with a protected characteristic. Staff helped clients with communication support. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the results.

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.

Staff delivered person-centred care that ensured treatment was tailored to individual need and supported clients to access and engage with the service. Staff encouraged clients to be active participants in their care and were able to offer a range of treatment options to ensure care was holistic and personalised.

Clients we spoke with told us that staff were personalised in their approach, had taken time to understand their personal circumstances and had sought to deliver care to meet their needs. They gave us examples where staff had carried out home visits or met with them in their preferred venues when they did not want, or were unable to, attend the services’ primary locations. Clients told us staff had discussed different care options with them, including medication choices, access to psychology and counselling and the choice between community based or residential detoxification programmes. They told us they felt supported to make decisions in line with their own needs, circumstances and goals.

We observed 4 client appointments during our inspection. Appointments were person-centred. Staff encouraged clients to express their views and preferences and discussed the actions and treatment options best suited to meet them. For example, staff discussed reductions in medications and revised appointment schedules to support a client accessing a work opportunity. Staff supported clients to develop their recovery capital in one to one sessions, group work and through signposting and referral to other services.

However, we found that care plan documents did not always reflect the quality and person-centred focus of the care we witnessed and which was described to us by staff and clients.

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 had positive working relationships with external teams and organisations. The service worked in partnership with a range of external agencies and third sector organisations to provide integrated, holistic care. These included primary healthcare services, mental health services, social care, criminal justice, mutual aid groups and third sector support organisations such as homeless services and domestic violence support. Clients we spoke with were positive about how staff liaised with other services and helped coordinate care.

Staff supported clients to access education and work opportunities. There was an Asset Based Community Development Lead who led a team that supported clients in accessing educational courses. There were good links with local adult learning centres and colleges. Staff supported access to educational courses such as English and maths as well as vocational courses such as an introduction to teaching assistants and barista training.

The service worked with a third sector organisation to encourage and support clients into work. Key workers could refer interested clients who were in structured treatment to the programme. The service completed an assessment with the client to identify their work history, goals, barriers to employment and any concerns they had about returning to work. The service provided advice and training around job searches, competing job applications, writing CV’s and covering letters and developing interview skills. They contacted possible employers who matched with clients’ experience, qualifications or desired profession and worked to with them to develop employment opportunities.

The service had participated in a local event with a range of employers and educational services which enabled clients to gather information on opportunities that were available in the area.

Staff supported clients to maintain contact with their families and carers and supported families through recovery. The service had a dedicated Family Team who worked with clients with young children where there were risk factors or social services involvement. The team offered a range of interventions including courses that supported and developed parenting skills as well as a programme that enabled parents and children to work together to understand the impact of addiction on the family unit and relationships.

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 sure that clients could access information on addiction, physical health conditions and the impact of alcohol and illicit substances as well as treatment, support groups, other local services and how to give feedback or complain to the provider. Information leaflets and posters on display in team buildings and provided by staff were in English but staff could arrange to have them translated where required. This included easy read versions. The organisation had undertaken work to improve the accessibility of their website. They had commissioned an accessibility audit by an external company and developed an action plan to address identified issues. This included work around colour contrasts and descriptive labels on form fields.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of client records. Staff we spoke with were aware of factors around data protection and confidentiality. Staff completed Data Protection and Information Security Awareness training as part of the mandatory training programme. At the time of our inspection, compliance with the training was 89%.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed. They responded promptly and positively when follow up information was required.

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.

Clients and carers knew how to complain or raise concerns. Information on how to complain was advertised in reception areas and available in leaflet form. None of the clients or carers that we spoke with had reason to raise a complaint but told us they would feel comfortable doing so if they needed to.

Staff understood the provider’s policy on complaints and knew how to handle them. Staff attempted local resolution as a first step and moved to a formal complaint if this was unsuccessful.

In the 12 months prior to our inspection (1 May 2025 until 30 March 2026) the service received 13 formal complaints. These covered a range of concerns including staff attitude, issues with prescriptions and appointment delays. All the complaints had been investigated and resolved. 7 complaints had been upheld, 4 were partially upheld and 2 were not upheld.

Managers ensured complaints were investigated in line with the provider policy. Feedback from complaints was shared with staff in team meetings and supervision. Learning from complaints was used to inform service improvement.

Staff enabled clients to give feedback on the service they received and sought to include them in decision making about the service. The service conducted a monthly pulse survey to capture client feedback and views on the service. In the period April 2025 to March 2026 the service completed 11 monthly pulse surveys (there was no survey in February 2026). The survey reported an average 92.6% satisfaction with the service. An analysis of survey returns showed that in general clients were happy with the care and treatment they received. Key themes included praise for staff and client staff relationships, clients feeling safe and positive feedback on the holistic and recovery orientated nature of the service. Areas that were identified for improvement included the geographical accessibility of the Bootle service and improvements in communication around cancelled appointments or group sessions.

Managers used client feedback to generate service improvement and developments. For example, client feedback on the Bootle service identified that the location of the service meant it was not always easy to travel to and there were limited public transport options. As a result, the service worked with commissioners and partner agencies to identify and open an additional site located in the centre of Bootle. The second site was due to open in the weeks following our inspection.

The service utilised a ‘you said, we did’ format to illustrate the changes made in response to client feedback. There were display boards in the service detailing the changes that had been made. For example, client feedback noted they found it difficult if their keyworker was changed. In response the service had worked to improve continuity of care by strengthening the handover process when change was necessary and reviewing caseloads to support more consistent key worker allocation. Clients had raised that they wanted more groups and a wider choice. In response the service had broadened the range of groups available and developed more wellbeing and activity-based groups as well as reviewing the opportunity for more evening and weekend options.

Clients were involved in helping develop and implement changes in the service through co-production. Clients had been involved in the design of the new building in Bootle. Clients had also been involved in the development of an advertising campaign to raise awareness of the service particularly amongst women using prescription medication, women using alcohol and adults aged 18 to 40 mixing alcohol and drugs socially. This included the use of social media, bus stop advertising and posters placed in services such as pharmacies, social care services and children and young people services. Clients had also been involved in the development and production of a film designed to reduce the stigma around addiction and individuals struggling with addiction.

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 accessible and had worked to improve this and increase engagement with groups who found the service difficult to access. Clients could self-refer and opening times included evening and weekend hours to support clients in full time employment. The service operated a duty assessment worker rota, open access drop-in sessions and could facilitate same day prescribing when this was required and safe to do so.

The service had responded to client feedback over the location of the Bootle site. This was on the outskirts of Bootle and clients reported it was difficult to access with limited public transport links, particularly via buses. In response the service had identified an additional site in central Bootle and worked with clients to develop the new building. The new location was due to open in the weeks following our inspection.

Staff ensured that the needs of clients with mobility issues were met and made reasonable adjustments to support access to the service. Buildings had disabled access, toilets and ground floor facilities including meeting rooms, group rooms and drug testing areas. Needle exchanges were located on the ground floor. Where required, staff visited clients at home or arranged for them to be picked up and transported to the service.

The service had worked to reduce barriers to access for groups who found the service difficult to access. There were outreach teams that worked in the community and engaged with groups such as street drinkers, homeless people and sex workers. They developed relationships with these groups, promoted the service and had been trained to carry out assessments in-situ to promote engagement. They visited hostels and other homeless support services, offering drop-in sessions where individuals could access support and advice on their drug or alcohol use or be assessed to begin treatment. For example, one outreach worker had recently completed an assessment with a homeless person who was struggling to come into the main service due to anxiety. They had engaged them with the service through the assessment process and arranged to collect the individual and attend future appointments in the service with them to support them through treatment.

Outreach workers could complete care plans and act as key workers for non-opiate clients on the streets. For example, an outreach worker in the Bootle service held a caseload of clients in a local hostel. However, clients on the opiate pathway were required to attend the service for medical appointments around prescribing and those on the alcohol pathway were required to attend for an alcohol nurse assessment. Outreach workers supported clients to attend these appointments. They had access to an outreach car that was operated by the service to support this.

Outreach workers engaged with the LGBTQ+ community. They worked to promote awareness of the service amongst these groups and supported assessment and engagement. The service supported some transgender clients. Toilets and drug testing facilities in buildings were general neutral and transgender clients were offered a key worker of the gender of their choice. Outreach workers also engaged with sex workers. The service was due to start running a female sex worker support group as part of this work.

The service was exploring options to better support and engage with the east European population in Southport. This was following work that had identified a growing east European community within the area and an increase in members of the community accessing the service.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and 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.

The service worked to ensure equity in experience and outcomes for individuals from different communities and those with protected characteristics. Staff completed equality, diversity and inclusion training to support the delivery of care. At the time of our inspection compliance with the training was 100%. Clients we spoke with told us they were treated equally and without discrimination.

The service was able to provide interpreters and translated documents to ensure that clients whose first language wasn’t English were able to participate in appointments and had access to the same information as English speaking clients. The service offered male and female only groups and where required key workers of a requested gender. We spoke with a group worker who told us they were looking at ways to make groups more accessible to neurodiverse individuals.

Staff completed the Oliver McGowan Learning Disabilities and Autism training to support the delivery of care to clients with a learning disability or autistic clients. At the time of our inspection compliance with the training was 100%. During our inspection we observed an appointment with a client who had mild learning disabilities and cognitive impairment. Staff engaged with the client using appropriate language and materials and ensured they were able to be an active participant in their care and treatment.

The service analysed demographic information and took action to address any inequitable outcomes. The service was part of the local Combatting Drugs Partnership where service demographics and outcomes were monitored and compared to national data and trends.

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.

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. Staff discussed discharge planning with clients and ensured that they were signposted or referred to appropriate services to continue and sustain their recovery post discharge. This included mutual aid groups. In addition, the service worked with clients to help them identify and access educational and employment opportunities as part of their recovery planning and post discharge arrangements.

Staff provided advice to clients on how to manage in a crisis and completed My Safety plans with them. Staff also supplied a list support and crisis services that clients could contact including the service’s own crisis line, local mental health crisis cafes and services and agencies that supported victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault. The service also provided a suicide prevention information pack which included advice on how to cope with suicidal thoughts.

The service had an end-of-life care pathway for clients who had terminal illness. Staff worked with other relevant health professionals to continue to deliver care.