Scovell Street, Salford

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

At our last inspection we rated caring as Good. At this inspection the rating has remained Good. 

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 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff 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. We saw some very positive interactions between staff and clients and this demonstrated safe support care in a calm, structured environment.

Staff supported clients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Clients had daily sessions with their keyworker and could discuss any issues during this time.

Staff directed clients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services. These included referrals for housing, benefits, counselling or social services.

Clients that we spoke with all said staff treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them. This included 2 previous clients who had come to visit the service for the day following their achievement of a successful discharge after treatment.

Clients described a stable, supportive culture in which they could always seek advice and guidance from both staff and fellow clients. One client said that they were “dreading admission to the service but received a warm welcome and did not want to leave.”

All clients said that they attended the groups and were able to share information without fear of judgement or discrimination. All 5 clients told us that staff monitored their physical health and that support was given to access health professionals outside of the service when needed. One client was referred to a mental health team to support them with past trauma and all 5 clients reported that the gentle encouragement of staff had supported their health and wellbeing.

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards clients without fear of the consequences. Managers had an open-door policy and staff were very confident to approach them or the chief executive of the service.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about clients. All records were stored on an electronic system.

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.

There was one en suite bedroom on the ground floor which could accommodate a client with mobility issues. The service had supported several neurodiverse clients who required reasonable adjustments to enable them to engage effectively in the therapeutic programme. For example, sensory aids such as fidget devices had been provided to support concentration and participation during group therapy sessions.

Staff ensured that clients could obtain information on treatments, local services, clients’ rights, how to complain and so on. There was information displayed within the service and staff looked up any additional information as required.

Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by clients. They achieved this by using online translation services on the internet. The service had made reasonable adjustments to meet identified language needs. This included sourcing and providing the Alcoholics Anonymous Big Book in Polish to support a client whose first language was Polish, ensuring equitable access to programme materials and recovery resources. In addition, the service recognised that individuals had differing communication preferences and learning styles. Clients were offered the option to present or verbalise their therapeutic work instead of completing written tasks where appropriate. Group therapy sessions were delivered using a range of learning approaches, including verbal discussion, written exercises, visual materials, and experiential activities. 

Managers ensured that staff and clients had easy access to interpreters and/or signers and would book this for a client for whom English was not their first language.

Staff understood the individual needs of clients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. 

Clients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances. The service encouraged clients to take turns to meal plan, shop and cook. The needs and preferences of other clients were considered during these processes.

Staff ensured that clients had access to appropriate spiritual support and would help them to attend their chosen place of worship in the community.

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 explained client’s treatment plans, choices and activities to them in a way that they could understand. This was repeated until staff were assured that clients had understood and we saw that this was recorded in client records.

All clients were encouraged to attend their MDT and all other meetings relating to their care and treatment. They could request support from the advocacy services to represent their wishes and feelings and carers were invited with the client’s permission. Clients were fully included in the discussion at MDT and all disciplines were included in giving feedback.

There was a range of activities at the service seven days per week. Clients could participate in areas of interest and those who had progressed could visit the local community.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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 dealt with any specific risk issues, such as early discharge from treatment, domestic violence or safeguarding concerns. We saw that there were exit plans in client records for those leaving treatment prior to completion.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, clients. Risk assessments were updated promptly when any changes took place or incidents occurred.

Staff used de-escalation techniques such as verbal de-escalation and additional one to one sessions when clients’ behaviours became heightened. 

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.

All of the staff that we spoke with said they 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 provided access to an Employee Assistance Programme (EAP). This service offered confidential advice and support, including counselling, legal guidance, and wellbeing resources, ensuring staff had access to independent professional assistance when required. In addition, health and wellbeing was routinely discussed within line management and supervision sessions. These meetings provided structured opportunities for staff to reflect on workload, raise concerns, and seek support.

Managers actively monitored staff wellbeing and offered guidance or signposting where appropriate. 

The service’s staff sickness and absence were low at 4% at the time of the inspection.

The service recognised staff success within the service – for example, through staff awards. To recognise staff contributions and boost morale, the service organised a team away day at Go Ape and a festive Christmas meal. These events celebrated staff achievements and provided opportunities for the team to reflect on their hard work in enjoyable, supportive settings. The away day encouraged teamwork and collaboration through activities such as the high-ropes course, while the Christmas meal offered a chance to acknowledge everyone’s efforts over the year and foster a sense of appreciation and community. 

Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported.