Scovell Street, Salford

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.

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

Staff managed beds well. Clients did not have to stay in the service when they were well enough to leave. 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. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

The service was committed to delivering care and treatment tailored to each client’s individual needs, preferences, and protected characteristics, in line with person-centred and inclusive practice. An example of this was support for a client who transitioned gender during their stay. The service provided holistic support throughout this process, including facilitating access to hospital appointments and escorting the client as required, supporting the client with practical and emotional needs during and after surgery, providing guidance and support to the wider client community to ensure understanding and respect of the client’s transition and following surgery, ensuring safety, comfort, and dignity. 

The service undertook quarterly satisfaction surveys with clients alongside ongoing informal feedback through community meetings and 1:1 keyworker session. The client survey outcome over the last 12 months reported high overall satisfaction and clients reported feeling safe, respected, and involved in their care. There was positive feedback regarding staff support and keyworker availability. Staff used the survey outcomes to Identify areas for development including increased activity provision and clearer communication about service updates. Survey findings were reviewed by management and incorporated into the service improvement plan. 

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 work opportunities. The service encouraged clients to engage in education, training, and work opportunities as part of their recovery and personal development. Clients were supported to explore volunteering, further education, and employment once they had completed Stage 1 of their recovery. The primary treatment programme was typically 13 weeks but could last longer depending on client need. A client who completed the programme was working with a local substance misuse service and another client was currently undertaking a counselling diploma at a local college.

Staff supported clients to maintain contact with their families and carers. Clients were actively encouraged and supported to sustain these connections throughout their stay and were supported to arrange regular visits, phone calls, or video calls with family members.  

Staff supported clients to access their chosen place of worship within the community. Spiritual and cultural needs were identified during the pre-admission assessment to ensure that appropriate support could be planned and provided from the outset.

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 including safeguarding, notifications to CQC and to commissioners.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of client records via use of the electronic recording system.

Staff ensured that clients could obtain information on treatments, local services, clients’ rights, how to complain and so on.

The information provided was in a form accessible to the particular client group for example, in easy-read form, using visual aids and in audio form.

Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by clients.

Staff ensured carers, families and commissioners were regularly updated about the client’s progress. 

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 in the 12 months prior to our inspection. However, there was one informal complaint regarding staff attitude which was resolved at local level. As a result of this, managers reinforced expectations regarding professional communication and respectful engagement.

Clients we spoke with knew how to complain or raise concerns and we saw complaints leaflets displayed at the service.

Staff said that they would protect clients who raised concerns or complaints from discrimination and harassment. The service had an up-to-date complaints policy in place which stated that anyone who raised a complaint or concern should not be subjected to discrimination, harassment, or unfair treatment. Clients were informed of the complaints procedure on admission and reassured that raising concerns will not negatively affect their care. 

The manager told us that complaints were managed confidentially and shared only on a need-to-know basis. Management oversight ensured that previous concerns were reviewed appropriately, and any indication of unfair treatment was  addressed through safeguarding procedures. 

Where required, clients were supported to access independent advocacy to ensure their voice was heard.

Staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately. They had previously received feedback on the outcome of the investigation of complaints and acted on their findings. 

Over the 12 months prior to our inspection, the service had received a number of compliments from clients and their relatives and cards were displayed at the service.

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.

Staff ensured the needs of clients with mobility issues were met – for example, a wheelchair user could be placed in the bedroom at ground level. Staff made reasonable adjustments for clients such as providing walking aids or shower chairs. There were no clients with mobility issues at the time of the inspection. 

In the event of a medical emergency, staff called an ambulance and the service was within a reasonable travelling distance to the local acute hospital. 

Staff ensured clients had access to post-discharge care  for example, community mental health services and crisis services. 

Staff planned for clients’ discharge well in advance, including good liaison with external services such as housing, benefits and probation.

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. The service promoted an open and transparent culture where clients felt safe and supported to vocalise concerns without fear of negative consequences. This approach ensured that concerns can be addressed promptly and proportionately, supporting continuous service improvement and maintaining positive client relationships. 

The provider had undertaken equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage. Any potential negative impacts were identified and mitigated prior to implementation, and assessments were reviewed regularly to maintain compliance and fairness.

Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights and compliance was at 100%.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future. 

Staff supported clients to make decisions about their care and treatment and their future.

This included working collaboratively with clients to create personalised care plans to account for the client’s needs, wishes and feelings. Staff ensured that relevant external professionals were involved in the planning of care and subsequently in discharge planning at an early stage, and were made aware of key dates so that support was in place.

Staff provided clients and families with information to support them after discharge. This included signposting people to mutual aid groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous, supporting people to maintain contact with the service as a peer supporter and, in some cases, progressing into paid employment with the provider and through collaborative working with other relevant stakeholders such as housing providers, the benefits agency and other health and social care services