The Retreat York

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

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

Staff were polite, respectful, supportive and responsive when caring for clients. Staff understood and respected the individual needs of each client. Staff gave clients and their relatives help, emotional support and advice when they needed it, this included over the phone or email exchanges between appointments if required.

Staff involved clients and relatives where appropriate in their care planning. All relatives we spoke to were involved in their loved one’s care and treatment where required. This was also clearly documented in care plans. Staff made sure clients understood their care and treatment.

We saw staff interacting with clients contacting the service, be that for a routine matter or in crisis. We saw staff make urgent appointments for clients to see the service psychiatrists or other session workers as required without the need to consult the staff members first.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff were polite, respectful, supportive and responsive when caring for clients. Staff understood and respected the individual needs of each client. Staff gave clients and their relatives help, emotional support and advice when they needed it. This included over the phone or email exchanges between appointments if required. There was a local ADHD website for relatives to access which gave links to all the local agencies and support groups.

Staff directed clients to other services and supported them to access those services if they needed help. One client told us about the websites and online resources they had been signposted too. Another told us they were now hopeful of a successful outcome after beginning treatment.

The service was able to support and adjust for disabled clients as appropriate. The service had ground floor rooms available if clients had mobility issues and used video calling for clients who could not attend in person.

One client told us how their ADHD would have prevented them from completing an assessment form with their young daughter. Their daughter had been asked to assess their mother in everyday situations, but the service had recognised the mothers need and completed the form with the daughter ensuring the appointment could take place.

Staff ensured that clients could obtain information on treatments, local services, clients’ rights, and how to complain. Staff explained how information could be provided in a form accessible for specific client needs or languages.

Managers noted that staff and clients could access interpreters as required.

Staff involved clients and relatives where appropriate in their care planning. All relatives we spoke to were involved in their loved one’s care and treatment where required. This was also clearly documented in care plans. Staff made sure clients understood their care and treatment.

Clients we spoke with generally felt informed about their care and treatment. They described how they had received information about their medication and that they were involved in reviews about their care and treatment. They reported that, where appropriate, their family, carers or loved ones were involved in meetings about their care. However, some did complain about the wait for referral to first appointment.

We saw staff interacting with clients contacting the service, be that for a routine matter or in crisis. We saw staff make urgent appointments for clients to see the service psychiatrists or other session workers as required without the need to consult them first.

At the last assessment not all staff felt respected, supported and valued. They did not always feel able to give feedback honestly to managers in the service. The service’s lone working protocols and policy had not been fully implemented and did not offer support to all staff groups. The induction process did not meet staff needs.

On this assessment staff that we spoke to felt respected, supported and valued within their roles. Staff gave positive feedback about their roles and were proud to work for the organisation. The service manager had changed since the last assessment.

Managers described how they supported staff within their roles and how staff could access support for any physical or emotional health needs they may have.

Lone working and induction processes were now in place.