ABBI Clinic Manchester

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.

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 always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion and we respect their privacy and dignity. We treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

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 were discreet, respectful and responsive when caring for patients. Staff gave patients emotional support and advice when they needed it. We observed two group therapy activities during our inspection. We found staff were responsive to the individual needs of each patient, encouraging group participation but also respecting patients when they felt unable to share in the group setting.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their own care and treatment. Patients told us they had regular one-to-one meetings with their named nurse, weekly psychology, and good access to the consultant psychiatrist, specialist GP and dietician. This allowed them to discuss different aspects of their treatment and care with the appropriate professional.

Staff directed patients to other services when appropriate. At assessment if the service could not meet the needs of patients, patients were signposted to other services. As part of the assessment and admission process, patients were provided with contact information for two charity organisations that supported people with an eating disorder and their families; Beat eating disorders and Families Empowered and Supporting Treatment of Eating Disorders (FEAST).

Patients were overwhelmingly positive about the staff and how supportive they were and how they were able to meet their individual needs and support them during their treatment. They told us that staff treated them well and behaved kindly. Patients said staff were “really sensitive during challenging times and really responsive when you need them” and “happy to listen and come up with sensible ways to approach things.” Patients also recognised that staff were easily accessible and felt that when they needed to contact staff, they received a timely response in most cases.

Patients told us how staff understood and respected the individual needs of each patient, and this was also reflected in the discussions we had with staff during our inspection.

Staff told us they felt they were able to raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients and staff.

Staff followed the provider’s policy to keep patient information confidential.

We treat people as individuals and make sure their care, support and treatment meets their needs and preferences, taking account of their strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

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 made adjustments for disabled patients. They ensured disabled people’s access to premises and worked to meet patients’ specific communication needs. For example, the service had developed a range of easy read documents that were available to patients. Other reasonable adjustments made within the service included a plan for the day on the white board to help patients to know what was happening next, as well as patients having access to the google drive which contained all the resources and PowerPoint slides. Patients told us they found this helpful as they were able to take notes from the slides and didn’t have to worry about not taking all the information down.

Staff made sure patients could access information on treatments, local services, their rights and how to complain. This was included in the welcome pack and there was a feedback box at the service.

The service did not have information leaflets readily available in languages other than English. However, staff were aware that this could be required and could tell us how they would access these if needed. Managers also made sure staff and patients could access interpreters or signers when needed. A service which could provide this support if needed had been identified by managers at the service so that prompt access could be arranged.

We promote people’s independence, so they know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

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 involved patients in decisions about the service where appropriate. For example, patients told us that they had requested changes in the way group sessions were delivered and this was listened to by staff and changes were made.

Staff supported patients to maintain relationships with family and friends, offering a bi-monthly carers group as well as providing carers with access to relevant resources on the Google Drive that could be shared with their wider support network.

Care plans indicated that patients were involved in making decisions about their care and this was also shared by patients when we spoke with them. Patients shared they felt in control of their care and that staff supported them to go at their own pace rather than feeling rushed.

Patients were also able to raise concerns or make suggestions during feedback sessions that were run by the clinic. Staff and patients shared that this had been a beneficial place to gain feedback and make changes where appropriate.

We listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. We respond to these in that moment and will act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Quality Statement Score: 3.

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 responded promptly to any sudden deterioration in a patients health. Patients had one to one meetings with their named nurse weekly and reviews when required by the specialist GP.

Changes within the service and with patients were shared with colleagues and we saw that meetings took place with patients and their family members to discuss challenges and agree a way forward with treatment.

Morning clinical team huddle meetings had been introduced to discuss the plans for the day, including staffing and any patient risks that staff needed to be aware of. The agenda included updates on patients attending the groups, and crisis and escalation pathways.

We care about and promote the wellbeing of our staff, and we support and enable them to always deliver person centred care.

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 within the team. Staff feedback questionnaires had been completed, and these were extremely positive across all aspects of the survey.

The service had a staff group that felt positive, satisfied and had low level of stress. Staff told us that they felt supported and listened to and this was also shown within staff records for supervision both clinical and management.

Staff felt valued and part of the organisation’s future direction. We saw evidence in staff meeting minutes and received feedback from staff that service development was discussed within team meetings, during supervision, and also informally between these times.

Staff felt positive and proud about working for the provider and within their team. All staff we spoke with were extremely positive about the service and the outcomes for patients, noting they felt the service was valued and an essential part of patient recovery.

Within supervision, line managers monitored morale and job satisfaction within the team. Staff reported the provider promoted equality and diversity in its day-to-day work, with documentation about equity of access to the service available.

The service monitored sickness and absence rates. Sickness levels were low. Sickness rates for the 12 months before the inspection was 15 hours per month which was an average of 1.5%