ReNew

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.

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

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.

During our visit, we spoke with 10 people who used the service. 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. A client we spoke with said “I feel able to go in and be honest…. I won’t be judged and will get support…. every day it gets a little bit better”, and “I feel a part of ReNew”.

Staff supported clients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition.

Staff directed clients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services such as housing services and job services. Staff also supported people, if necessary, with job finding skills.

Clients said staff treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them.

Staff understood the individual needs of clients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. A recovery worker we met with was able to specifically support clients with limited knowledge of the English language by using their own language and supporting them with social activities that were meaningful to their culture.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about clients and said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards clients without fear of the consequences. A recovery worker told us, “My manager always talks to me and tells me when I’m doing a good job, I feel supported and I know I could approach her if I have a concern”.

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, goals, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The service made adjustments for disabled clients – for example, by ensuring disabled people’s access to premises and by meeting clients’ specific communication needs. The environment was also wheelchair accessible.

Staff ensured that clients could obtain information on treatments, local services, clients’ rights, how to complain and so on. A large amount of information leaflets were available to people to direct them to further support.

The information provided was in a form accessible to the particular client group (for example, in easy-read form for people with a learning disability) and other languages. We observed both managers and recovery workers who were able to support clients for whom English was not their first language.

Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by clients.

Staff and managers explained to us that appointments could be made in a variety of locations to better support people’s individual needs and challenges. A nurse told us, “When I started it was led by numbers and discharges, but that was 10 years ago and now it is service user focussed. We would never have met the clients for a coffee, we go above and beyond. Some of us have P cards if we want to go meet a client , if I’m on outreach and I see someone has holes in their trainers I can go and buy them new ones. We now have access to get people the things they need. I’m proud of everything we do for them and how flexible it is”.

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 offered clients with alternative treatment options if they were unable to comply with specific treatment requirements, e.g. buprenorphine as an alternative to methadone.

Staff signposted clients to supportive services within the community such as mutual aid groups and services offering psychosocial intervention strategies.

Staff supported clients to maintain relationships and networks that are important to them.

Staff supported clients to access activities and the local community to promote and support their independence, health and wellbeing. This included access to a kitchen and canteen, laundry facilities, social networking opportunities including games that were regionally focused to support the eastern European community, and local support groups.

A client we spoke to explained to us that the service made him feel valued and enabled him to utilise his skills and knowledge to run a fishing group. He told us, “I feel a bit loved by them”

Staff supported and enabled clients to have choice and control over their own care and to make decisions about their care, treatment and wellbeing.

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 physical or mental health concerns and care planned for these accordingly. Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, clients. This was evidenced inevidenced in recovery plans that we reviewed.

When visiting the needle exchange, staff encouraged clients to take naloxone home with them to mitigate the risk of death from overdosing on opiate drugs and a harm reduction form was always completed.

Staff worked with clients to develop crisis plans and relapse prevention strategies. A recovery worker we spoke to told us, “I know how it is to be a homeless person and a person with addiction; I feel that helping these people has improved me too.”

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 and valued. They were trusted and supported in making decisions in their roles that best supported people.

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 and comprehensive supervision notes included discussions about staff wellbeing. All staff had access to a wellbeing hub on the provider’s intranet. Staff also had access to reflective practice sessions.

The provider recognised staff success within the services, managers gave feedback to their staff and staff had received recognition awards. Staff who took part in the in-house podcast had also been recognised and celebrated externally.

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

Staff followed clear personal safety protocols and had access to an alarm system.