STARS (Southend Treatment and Recovery Service)

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.

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

This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

Leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles. Staff knew and understood the provider’s vision and values and how they applied to the work of their team. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Governance processes operated effectively. Performance and risk were managed well. Teams had access to the information they needed to provide safe and effective care. Staff collected 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.

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.

The service’s vision was to support anyone, regardless of their history or circumstances, to live a positive life and inspire others, delivering services with compassion and without judgement. This was embedded through visible recovery within the service, enabling people at the start of their journey to see positive outcomes.

Opportunities for peer mentoring, volunteering, and employment provided clear pathways to life beyond substance use. The service provided opportunities for people to train as peer mentors and progress to employment. The peer mentors we spoke with were extremely positive about the service and the support they received.

The service’s core values of respect, inclusion, compassion, integrity, and collaboration underpinned all aspects of service delivery and guided staff interactions with people, colleagues, and partners.

The values were embedded through person-centred care, staff training, supervision, reflective practice, and team meetings, ensuring consistent application across assessments, treatment planning, group sessions, and peer support.

Recruitment, policies, performance management, and wellbeing initiatives further reinforced a culture where the vision and values were actively demonstrated and experienced by both staff and people.

Staff we spoke to told us they felt there was a positive culture within the service and among their colleagues.

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.

The service had a team of operational and clinical leaders who demonstrated the skills, knowledge, and experience to perform their roles effectively. Leaders had a thorough understanding of the services they managed and were able to explain how teams delivered high-quality care. Leaders were visible and approachable to staff, people, and carers. Staff reported a friendly, open, and supportive culture with good morale, describing leaders as responsive and easy to speak with.

Leadership development opportunities were available, and staff had access to training to support career progression. Several managers had progressed from other roles within the organisation, supported by leaders who were described as encouraging and supportive. Leaders valued the organisational culture, which promoted lived experience and created opportunities for people to engage in training, volunteering, and employment.

The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Freedom to Speak Up information for staff was clearly displayed on the premises. Staff we spoke with said they were confident to raise concerns, should they need to. Staff said they would be comfortable to do so by approaching the managers.

Freedom to speak up concerns raised related to accessibility of support for neurodivergent staff and reports of microaggressions or challenges with inclusion within teams. Targeted training was delivered to some teams in response, and a Neurodiversity Hub was being developed to provide information, guidance, and resources for staff with a neurodiverse diagnosis or those seeking support.

People had opportunities to give feedback on the service they received in a manner that reflected their individual needs. Questionnaires were given to people to complete regularly and after treatment to gain people’s experiences of the care they received.

Managers and staff had access to the feedback from people, carers and staff and used it to make improvements.

People and carers were involved in decision-making about changes to the service. The service sought feedback from people at forum and carer meetings. People and staff could meet with members of the provider’s senior leadership team to give feedback.

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 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 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.

In June 2025, Forward Trust reviewed workforce diversity across 880 staff, covering disability, sex, ethnicity, age, and sexuality. Overall, there were gradual improvements in diversity and disclosure, but challenges remained in leadership representation and high non-disclosure rates. The organisation planned to strengthen inclusion, develop leadership pipelines, review progression and retention, share data transparently, and continue annual monitoring. Recent data has shown improvements in these areas.

Staff were able to apply to work flexibly for personal circumstances such as caring responsibilities and health issues and managers put reasonable adjustments in place for staff members to help them carry out their role.

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.

Our findings from the other key questions demonstrated that governance processes operated effectively at team level and that performance and risk were managed well. Governance arrangements were proactively reviewed and reflected best practice

Meetings at team and management level followed a clear structure to ensure that essential information, such as learning from incidents and complaints, was shared and discussed. Monthly governance team meetings covered multiple topics including lessons learnt, safeguarding, incidents, clinical updates, psychology, and partnership working. Information discussed in leadership meetings was shared with all staff in governance meetings. Cases were discussed in weekly clinical meetings with actions documented.

Staff had implemented recommendations from reviews of deaths, incidents, complaints, and safeguarding alerts at the service level. Staff participated in mortality meetings, which reviewed cases where there had been deaths. The meetings were focused on learning, identified actions and changes in practice where appropriate.

Leaders maintained and had access to a risk register which included appropriate risks and actions in place to mitigate them. The risks were allocated to a manager and reviewed regularly. Progress was monitored on a regular basis. The risks identified were graded by their severity.

Staff undertook or participated in local clinical audits. The audits were sufficient to provide assurance and staff acted on the results when needed. For example, clinical staff completed regular audits of medicines, needle exchange, clinical rooms and equipment.

Leaders had access to information to support them with their management role. This included information on the performance of the service, staffing and people’s care. Leaders collected and reviewed data to monitor the performance of the service. The service had key performance indicators (KPI) set by their commissioners to help monitor and improve progress in performance. The service had regular reviews with their commissioners where performance and trends were discussed.

Leaders had access to information which ensured they had oversight of risk and performance. They were able to track information such as whether people were due for a medical review or whether people had received contact in the last 4 weeks. Leaders shared key metrics with all staff members on a weekly basis.

The service had plans for emergencies, for example, loss of IT access or an outbreak of illness. The service had a business continuity plan in place.

We received feedback from 3 stakeholders including commissioners and partner organisations from mental health services and the police. One commissioner gave very positive feedback, highlighting strong collaboration with the service describing the organisation as responsive, proactive, and committed to adapting services to meet local needs. Furthermore, the service had introduced innovative initiatives, improved engagement and treatment outcomes, and worked closely with partner agencies to provide holistic, person-centred care. Staff demonstrated awareness of emerging substance misuse trends and delivered effective harm reduction and community outreach.

Performance was monitored through regular KPI reporting, supported by open and constructive engagement with commissioners. Workforce development was prioritised, with staff supported to access training and progression opportunities.

Overall, the service was described as compassionate, collaborative, and effective in improving outcomes for the local community.

Another stakeholder from the police, described the team as approachable and responsive, with assessments and documentation completed to a high standard. Evidential reports were produced promptly, supporting timely enforcement where individuals failed to attend drug testing.

Another stakeholder reported improved communication and joint working between mental health services and STARS, leading to better care coordination.

However, they noted inconsistencies in support for people with serious mental illness, with variability in staff flexibility and approach sometimes creating barriers to engagement.

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.

There was a focus on continuous learning and improvement across the organisation. The service focused on improvement and learning from incidents. Managers and staff shared lessons learnt after incidents and met to discuss incidents and make improvements.

Learning was embedded within the service through structured weekly multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings, which promoted collaborative case discussion, reflective practice, and shared problem-solving. These meetings supported holistic care planning by combining clinical and psychosocial perspectives.

Staff engaged in learning following incidents through individual and team debriefs, identifying improvements and strengthening safety. Protected learning time was provided weekly, with a wide range of internal and external training to ensure knowledge remained current and evidence based.

The service also promoted staff wellbeing and team cohesion through informal activities, alongside encouraging wider learning through Forward Trust and partner organisations, including NHS services.

Overall, this approach supported continuous professional development, collaboration, and a positive team culture.