Scovell Street, Salford

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

This means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

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

Staff assessed the physical and mental health of all clients on admission. They developed individual care plans which were reviewed regularly through multidisciplinary discussion and updated as needed. Staff provided a range of treatment and care for clients based on national guidance and best practice. The team included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of clients at the service. Staff from different disciplines worked together as a team to benefit clients. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health Act Code of Practice and discharged these well. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Effective.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

We reviewed 4 care records during the assessment. 

There was evidence that staff completed a comprehensive assessment of the client in a timely manner at, or soon after, admission. The assessment covered mental and physical health, substance misuse, employment, caring responsibilities and financial issues.

Staff assessed clients’ physical health needs in a timely manner after admission and routinely thereafter. All clients had access to a GP and staff made referrals to specialist health providers if required.

Staff developed care plans that met the needs identified during assessment. This included physical and mental health, social situation, financial issues, substance misuse history and recovery goals. There were crisis plans in place and documentation in the event of early discharge from treatment.

We saw that staff updated care plans when there was a change in circumstances, risk  or client presentation.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health Act Code of Practice and discharged these well.

Staff provided a range of care and treatment interventions suitable for the client group. The service offered clients an abstinence-based programme based on the 12 steps to support them with recovery. This included a daily structured programme of activities such as morning meetings, group work, one to one sessions with a keyworker and ongoing goal setting. The interventions were those recommended by, and were delivered in line with, guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. The service also referred to the government guidance Drug misuse and dependence: UK guidelines on clinical management. Staff supported clients with budgeting and cooking to prepare them for living independently when discharged from the service. Clients who required specialist counselling were referred through the Achieve network. 

Staff ensured that client had good access to physical healthcare, including access to the GP, dentist, optician and specialists when needed. 

Staff participated in clinical audit, benchmarking and quality improvement initiatives. Examples of this included, safe storage, and compliance with administration protocols for medication. The findings were used to address any discrepancies, reinforce staff training, and maintain safe medication practices. There was monthly key performance indicators to assess service delivery, client outcomes, and operational performance. Managers analysed the KPI data to inform service planning and highlight areas for improvement. There were regular audits of client care records, and all documentation was checked for completeness, accuracy, and compliance with regulatory and organisational standards. Findings were used to update staff guidance, improve record-keeping practices, and enhance person-centred care. 

The team included a full range of specialists required to meet the needs of clients in the service. There was a residential services manager across each of the provider’s locations, along with a team leader, criminal justice team leader, group worker and  support workers.

Staff were experienced and qualified and had the right skills and knowledge to meet the needs of the client group. Some staff had lived experience of substance misuse and had successfully completed the abstinence programme and became paid members of staff.

Managers provided new staff with appropriate induction. This comprised a corporate and a local induction in line with the provider’s policies. Induction was completed within the first two weeks of employment, with key health and safety elements covered before staff worked independently. A signed induction checklist was retained in the personnel file.

The service ensured that all staff received regular supervision to maintain high standards of practice, professional development, and wellbeing. All staff received external clinical supervision with a qualified clinical psychologist every two months. This provided an opportunity to reflect on complex cases, discuss clinical decision-making, and receive expert guidance and support. Staff also received structured line management meetings every 4 to 6 weeks. These sessions covered performance, wellbeing, workload, training needs, and professional development. 

The percentage of staff that had received an appraisal in the 12 months prior to the inspection was 100%.

The percentage of staff that received regular supervision was 100%.

Managers identified the learning needs of staff and provided them with opportunities to develop their skills and knowledge. 

Managers ensured that staff received the necessary specialist training for their roles. Examples of this included modules in mental health and substance misuse and NVQ level 3 in health and social care.

Managers dealt with poor staff performance promptly and effectively. Initially supportive action plans were put in place and support from Human Resources was requested if required.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff held regular and effective multidisciplinary meetings (MDT). These took place weekly and were attended by all disciplines including external professionals such as probation representatives. We attended an MDT on the day of the assessment and saw that clients were encouraged to attend and empowered to participate in the meeting and express their wishes and feelings.

Staff shared information about clients at effective handover meetings within the team at each shift change.

The teams had effective working relationships, including good handovers, with other relevant teams within the organisation for example, the criminal justice keyworker who worked with the local prison and probation services in planning admission and discharge.

The teams had effective working relationships with teams outside the organisation for example the local authority social services, GPs and housing providers.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff supported clients to live healthier lives, for example through participation in smoking cessation schemes, healthy eating advice and menu planning, access to the local gyms, managing cardiovascular risks and dealing with issues relating to substance misuse.

Staff supported activities which helped to promote a healthy lifestyle for client including walking groups, sports activities and yoga. 

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Clients were asked to rate their physical health, emotional wellbeing, and overall quality of life using a 1 to 20 scale, with 20 representing the highest level of wellbeing. These ratings were collected on admission, after 3 months, and at discharge to track progress and outcomes over time. The service submitted treatment outcome profiles to the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System, (NDTMS) the national system used in England to monitor drug and alcohol treatment services. NDTMS collected information on referrals, assessments, admissions, planned and unplanned discharges, and treatment outcomes. 

By contributing to NDTMS, the provider was able to benchmark its performance against national standards, identify trends, and highlight areas for development. Feeding into NDTMS allowed the service to use the data to inform service planning, improve operational processes, monitor resident outcomes, and implement targeted interventions where needed.

In addition, rating systems were used to assess and document risks within the service, including completion of individual risk assessments and entries on the risk register, ensuring that any potential issues were identified, monitored, and managed appropriately

The service tracked programme completion rates, engagement in sessions, relapse prevention progress, and planned move-on outcomes. This data was reviewed regularly to assess service effectiveness and identify areas for improvement.

Staff used technology to support clients effectively for example, for prompt access to blood test results and online access to self-help tools. 

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff took all practical steps to enable clients to make their own decisions. On admission to the service, clients were asked to sign a contract stating that they would abide by the rules of the service. Staff created care plans and risk assessments together with the client and clients were invited to set their own goals and to attend multidisciplinary team meetings to discuss their care and treatment.

Capacity was assessed prior to admission to the service by the referrals team. For clients who might later have impaired mental capacity, staff referred them to mental health services.