Magda

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 assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good.

Good: This meant 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 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. 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 clients showed that they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing clients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. Client feedback included that they couldn’t speak any higher of the staff, that their commitment and enthusiasm for the job was excellent and that they got support when they needed it and that staff always had time for them. Clients told us, staff went above and beyond to support them.

Staff supported clients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Risk assessments and care plans were co-produced with clients and clients were encouraged to remain in control of their care and treatment.

Staff directed clients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services. For example, staff supported clients to access housing, mental health appointments and social care services.

Staff understood the individual needs of clients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. For example, staff supported clients with space to pray and arranged for them to have the time to do this. Staff had linked clients in with local places of worship and supported clients to access cultural and religious based foods such as halal and vegetarian options.

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards clients without fear of the consequences.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about clients and maintaining confidentiality was also included in the client’s treatment contract.

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

The service was unable to meet the needs of those with poor mobility. The property was not accessible to those with poor mobility. Clients with mobility needs would be placed at Rosemary Court which was another service owned by the provider which could accommodate access needs and requirements..

Staff ensured that clients could obtain information on treatments, local services and how to complain. The information provided was in a form accessible to the particular client group. Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by clients and managers ensured that staff and clients had easy access to interpreters and/or signers if required.

Clients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances. For example, staff told us how they had supported a client who required halal food.

Staff ensured that clients had access to appropriate spiritual support such as access to local mosques and churches and having appropriate spaces to pray.

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 promoted independence throughout their treatment. For example, staff supported and encouraged clients to take responsibility for administering their own medicines. Staff worked together with clients to develop their own care plans and risk assessments. Care plans were client led. Staff encouraged clients to complete household tasks such as cooking and cleaning as part of their recovery.

Therapy was carried out within groups and clients were encouraged to support each other and share observations and experiences to help each other in their recovery journey.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional in how they 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 dealt with any specific risk issues, such as a decline in mental health, eating disorders and physical health problems and care planned for these accordingly. For example, the provider had identified the specific needs of people who used ketamine and had developed a project in response to this. Staff received training on ketamine use and the damage this had on the bladder. The programme was developed around these needs and specific adaptions included a flexible group timetable, practical measures to promote client dignity such as the use of radar keys, tailored referral, assessment and care planning processes and access to a ketamine specific peer support hub.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, clients. Staff discussed concerns within the daily morning meeting and worked together with clients to address risks and concerns raised.

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 felt respected, supported and valued. Staff felt positive and proud about working for the provider and their team. Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service. The service also had mental health first aiders.

The service’s staff sickness and absence were similar to the average for the provider.

The provider recognised staff success within the service – for example, the service hosted treatment and recovery days for staff, which included a range of therapeutic and interactive activities in order to thank staff for their hard work.

Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported. Managers carried out continuous appraisal through a step further framework. This included managers and staff carrying out quarterly reviews of objectives through coaching style sessions and reviewing how these were aligned with service goals.