ReNew

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 assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

Staff managed access and flow well. The design, layout, and furnishings of the service’s premises 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.

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 had based client care around individual needs and preferences, they were able to give examples of tailoring appointments at different locations to aid engagement and better suit the client’s needs. This included multiple locations and partner sites. A client we spoke to told us that a staff member was able to pick him up from home to enable him to attend an appointment.

Care plans reflect the strengths and goals of clients and include actions to develop their recovery capital and were developed with the client and sometimes with family member involvement too.

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 supported clients to have access to education and work opportunities. This included support with job seeking, creating curriculum vitaes and interview techniques.

Staff supported clients to maintain contact with their families and carers.

The service had undertaken work to understand local demographics and the diverse needs of the local community. A pathway for ketamine users and women was being developed as a priority due to emerging needs identified by the service.

The service worked with other providers and community organisations to offer joined up care. Commissioners valued the service’s insight into system gaps and funding was generally secured when it is needed.

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.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of client records.

The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard.

Staff ensured that clients could obtain information on treatments, local services, clients’ rights, how to complain and so on. Signage and leaflets was available throughout the service and staff were knowledgeable on how to sign post clients.

Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by clients.

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.

Clients knew how to raise complaints and spoke positively of the staff. Clients received feedback including a timescale of how long the investigation may take.

Staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately.

Staff received feedback on the outcomes of investigation of complaints and acted on the findings. All complaints were logged digitally, reviewed every 6 weeks and learnings shared with the full service. Foreign language speaking staff were specifically involved in this process and were able to assist in feeding back complaint outcomes to people who used the service for who english was not a first language.

Staff enabled clients to give feedback on the service they received in person individually, via a pulse survey or at a quarterly service user forum.

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.

The service ensured the needs of clients with mobility issues were met – building ground floors were accessible and staff were able to offer support at different times and locations to meet people's needs of people who used the service.

Staff made reasonable adjustments for clients including those with family commitments.

There was adequate medical cover and the service could access support from mental health services. Staff ensured clients had access to post-discharge care such as mutual aid groups.

The service was easy to access. People were able refer themselves directly by completing an online form, or phoning to contact the service. GPs, healthcare workers, or other agencies were also able to refer someone into the service with their consent. Staff planned and managed discharge well and had alternative pathways for people whose needs it could not meet.

The service had assessed the needs of the local community to ensure the service is able to treat the community it serves.

The service had a good understanding of the local community and were able to support people with specific language requirements and focussed therapy groups such as those for women.

The service had flexible opening times to support access from those in full time employment.

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.

Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights and compliance rates had been met.

The service considered and addressed barriers to access for specific communities and those with protected characteristics. This included those for whom English was not a first language.

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, including at the end of their life.

Staff support clients to make decisions about their care and treatment and their future. A client that we spoke with told us, “The aftercare was good” whilst another told us they were supported “to make better choices”.

Staff create personalised care plans to account for the client’s needs, wishes and feelings. A client told us the “Staff are excellent and treat me with respect”.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies are involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs and plans were in place for when people's treatment may relapse.