STARS (Southend Treatment and Recovery Service)

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

Staff treated people with compassion and kindness. They respected peoples’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of people and supported people to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff involved people 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.

The service was exceptional at treating people with kindness, empathy and compassion and in how they respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff always treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with people, showed that they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing people with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. Throughout the inspection we saw positive interactions between staff and people using the service.

Staff supported people to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. People we spoke with told us they were involved in creating their care plans, understood these and were seen regularly to review these.

People we spoke with said staff treated them well, were kind, compassionate, honest and professional. One person told us, ‘Everyone is fantastic and they have helped me so much’ and another said, ‘I can’t speak highly enough about this service’.

The service received 66 compliments between February 2025 and October 2025. Feedback highlighted high levels of satisfaction, with staff described as kind, helpful, compassionate, and supportive, and individuals were often specifically recognised for their care. Feedback from the compliments showed that staff were flexible in their approach when working with people and focused on maintaining people’s dignity by supporting people in ways that they were comfortable with.

We obtained feedback from people using the service. We spoke with 4 people using the service and 2 family members. People said staff understood and respected their individual needs, supported them and they benefited from their 1 to 1 and group sessions with staff. Staff followed policy to keep people’s information confidential. Information was held on electronic systems which were protected.

Staff worked well with stakeholders and other organisations locally maintaining their focus on supporting people who use the service.

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, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The service made adjustments for disabled people. The service’s clinical rooms and needle exchange room were all on the ground floor. There were interview rooms and disabled toilet facilities available on the ground floor. Additionally, staff could be flexible and see people at other agreed locations to best suit people’s needs.

The service provided examples demonstrating how they supported individuals with complex and diverse needs. This included people facing language barriers, as well as those with physical and mental health needs. They also offered support with housing and broader social needs.

Staff ensured people could obtain information on treatments, local services and how to complain. For example, people told us they were supported to access education and work opportunities. People told us they knew how to raise a complaint if they needed to.

Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by people who used the service. Leaders ensured that people had access to interpreters.

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 individuals to understand and actively participate in decisions about their care, treatment, and condition. People we spoke with said they felt involved in their treatment, and that their care was reviewed regularly. They also reported being able to speak with a prescriber when needed.

Staff demonstrated a strong understanding of individuals’ social circumstances beyond their treatment, including their mental health and any relevant risk history. Staff and leaders explained that care was person-centred, shaped by the people, and led by their needs and preferences.

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.

Staff were aware of and appropriately managed specific risks, with care plans developed to address these. Leaders and staff worked collaboratively to identify and respond to any changes in risks posed to or by people using the service.

We observed an assessment and found that staff listened to people, provided them with space to express their views, and respected their decisions. Staff and people gave examples of adjustments made to support engagement in care and treatment. These included adapting how people accessed the service at the location due to physical disability or anxiety. Staff met people in alternative settings to improve accessibility due to child care responsibilities, mobility or legal restrictions accessing the area.

People were able to provide feedback about their treatment, and staff supported them to do so. Most people told us they knew how to raise a concern, felt confident in doing so, and believed that any concerns would be addressed appropriately.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff felt positive and proud about working for the service and their team and were motivated to provide support to people who used the service.

Staff were encouraged to report all incidents or behaviours that negatively impacted equality, diversity, inclusion, and dignity. Relevant leads were notified of reported incidents, provided guidance to managers where required and investigated these.

Leaders recognised staff success within the service. Positive feedback received from people, carers and other professionals was shared with staff.

Between October 2024 and March 2025, the Forward Trust conducted a staff culture survey, with 445 respondents, to assess workplace culture, values, and behaviours across the organisation. Key issues identified included leadership behaviours, ineffective communication, siloed working, low awareness of values, and concerns regarding pay and benefits.

Actions taken in response included staff forums, leadership development initiatives, the introduction of a staff representative group, improvements to internal communications, and ongoing reviews of values and working practices. However, during the inspection, we did not receive feedback from staff at the service, that reflected the concerns or themes identified in the organisational survey.

The organisation had an Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) policy and a three-year strategy (2024–2027) to promote an inclusive workforce and improve service accessibility, supported by appropriate governance structures.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service.

Staff were able to report concerns through confidential processes, including whistleblowing arrangements. The service monitored workforce diversity, completed equality impact assessments, and provided mandatory EDI training. Additional initiatives included staff networks and a working group to improve access and outcomes for underrepresented groups.