Magda

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

Good: This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

The design, layout, and furnishings of the service supported clients’ treatment, privacy and dignity. Staff supported clients with activities outside the service, such as work, education and family relationships. The service met the needs of all clients – including those with a protected characteristic. Staff helped clients with communication, advocacy and cultural and spiritual support. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the result.

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 used a person-centred approach to supporting clients. They listened to clients and understood their individual needs and preferences. Staff supported clients to develop their own goals and supported them to work towards achieving those goals. Clients felt the support given met their needs and was at a pace that was right for them.

Staff empowered clients to make their own decisions about their care and treatment. Care plans were client led, and treatment was based on individual needs. Clients had a house meeting every week where they could raise any concerns or share any ideas they had.

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.

When appropriate, staff ensured that clients had access to education and volunteering opportunities, for example the provider offered courses through their academy including counselling and peer support courses. They also had links to other organisations that provided volunteering opportunities.

Staff supported clients to maintain contact with their families and carers. Children were unable to attend the service, but staff would support clients to meet up with children off premises and supported contact visits where required.

The service linked in with local community services including homeless services, the local women’s service and the local college and supported clients to access these services if required.

Staff supported clients to access their chosen place of worship within the community.

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 notifications to external bodies as needed, for example staff made referrals to safeguarding and the Care Quality Commission. Information governance systems included confidentiality of client records and staff had completed cyber security training.

The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard. The information provided was in a form accessible to the client group. Staff reviewed the needs of each client to ensure they had access to information in a format that was accessible to them. For example, staff used an app to download information onto for a client who struggled with their reading and writing.

Staff ensured that clients could obtain information on treatments, local services, clients’ rights and how to complain. They made information leaflets available in languages spoken by clients. The services media and communication team could get information translated into a format that met the needs of the individual.

Staff ensured carers, families and commissioners were regularly updated about the client’s progress. Commissioners told us that communication was effective.

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.

There had been no complaints over the last 12 months. The service had an up to date complaints policy and clients knew how to complain or raise concerns and felt they could raise complaints and that these would be taken seriously. There was also a standing agenda item on the weekly residents meeting to encourage concerns to be raised. Carers did not always receive information on how to raise complaints, although there was information on how to get in touch on the provider website.

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 not easily or safely accessible to those with limited mobility. The provider was clear about this when providing information to prospective clients and staff told us they would signpost clients to another service.

Staff ensured clients had access to post-discharge care, for example staff liaised with community mental health services and other substance misuse services to ensure clients had ongoing aftercare support. Staff offered a weekly aftercare support group and the service had a limited number of properties that clients could move on to following completion of their treatment.

Staff planned for clients’ discharge, including good liaison with care managers/ co-ordinators.

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.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. Clients were encouraged to share any concerns they had at the weekly residents meeting and the service carried out regular surveys to gain client feedback.

The provider undertook equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage.

Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights.

Staff supported clients to make decisions about their care and treatment and their future. Staff started discharge planning at a midway point during their treatment and created personalised care plans to account for the client’s needs, wishes and feelings. The service had some aftercare accommodation and supported clients and supported clients with housing support. The service had a weekly aftercare support group to provide ongoing support for clients. Clients attended regular mutual aid meetings such as Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA) as part of their treatment programme. This helped clients to develop peer support networks which they could continue to access on leaving treatment.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs. For example, staff supported clients to obtain extra funding for increased length of stays where this was required.