ReNew

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

This means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good.

This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

Leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles. Staff knew and understood the provider’s vision and values and how they applied to the work of their team. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Governance processes operated effectively. Performance and risk were managed well. Teams had access to the information they needed to provide safe and effective care. Staff collected and analysed data about outcomes and performance. They used this to identify improvements.

We have not awarded this service a score for Well-led.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Well-led.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Staff knew and understood the provider’s vision and values and how they were applied in the work of their team.

The provider’s senior leadership team had successfully communicated the provider’s vision and values to the frontline staff in this service. There were always 2 senior leaders available, and the registered manager told us, “I like to have visible leadership. I’m talking to staff, I’m asking them what is their experience. They're the ones on the ground.”

Staff had the opportunity to contribute to discussions about the strategy for their service, especially where the service was changing.

Staff could explain how they were working to deliver high quality care within the budgets available. The registered manager told us, “The service belongs to the clients and we just work in it. I won’t ever change that mentality. People who come to my door must be cared for and looked after, even if it can be challenging at times”.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles.

Leaders had a good understanding of the services they managed. They had quality assurances processes in place that gave them good oversight of the service and they could explain clearly how the teams were working to provide high quality care which was discussed in regular management discussions. The registered manager also spoke to us about being empowered by the executive team with autonomy to do her role and, “They recognise my experience, but they are also there if I need them and all how things are going in Hull”.

Leaders were visible in the service and approachable for clients and staff. The registered manager regularly speaks with staff to understand frontline experiences. A recovery worker told us, “The managers are so approachable for staff. Everyone is really welcoming to each other, and we go above and beyond for each other. We see people get jobs, get back with their families and their children.”

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The service had policies and procedures to support whistleblowing and the freedom to speak up.

Managers promoted an open and honest culture and whistleblowing was discussed in team meetings. Staff understood how to raise concerns to management.

Staff understood these policies and felt comfortable using them without fear of reprisal. A project manager told us, “Everyone is approachable”.

The service was aware of the risks around closed cultures and had developed policies and/or actions to address this. Managers were visible to both staff and clients.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them.

Diversity was championed and celebrated by leaders. We saw evidence of the service celebrating LGBTQ+ History Month and giving recognition to the associated stigma and barriers around accessing support.

Staff were able to apply to work flexibly e.g. flexible working agreements to account for personal circumstances such as caring responsibilities and health issues.

Managers put reasonable adjustments in place for staff members to help them carry out their role. Staff we spoke to discussed being supported with adaptive equipment and access to medical appointments.

The provider undertook equality monitoring of staff within the service to ensure it was diverse in its make-up and representative of the client group. The provider monitored staff diversity to ensure the workforce reflected the characteristics of the people using the service, this included some staff with lived experience.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and share this securely with others when appropriate.

Governance systems within the service were effective. There was a clear framework of what must be discussed at team or directorate level in team meetings to ensure that essential information, such as learning from incidents and complaints, was shared and discussed. Agenda items include complaints and safeguarding.

Appropriate systems and processes were in place to maintain a safe and clean environment within the service premises.

There was a sufficient number of suitably trained, skilled, and experienced staff to meet the needs of clients safely. All clients were assessed appropriately and treated with respect and dignity. Staff complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act. The service effectively managed patient flow and ensured discharge planning was carried out in a timely and organised manner.

Staff had implemented recommendations from reviews of deaths, incidents, complaints and safeguarding alerts at the service level. Findings from complaints and incidents were no longer discussed only as a management group but service wide in team meetings to encourage learning and improvement.

Staff undertook or participated in local clinical audits. The audits were sufficient to provide assurance and staff acted on the results when needed.

Staff understood the arrangements for working with other teams, both within the provider and external, to meet the needs of the clients. A doctor we spoke to explained they attend a multidisciplinary team meeting every week. Other staff told us that clinicians and other professionals work together to help address any issues.

The risk register was up to date and the registered manager was knowledgeable about its content and actions that were in place. Staff were able to raise risks and concerns with their managers during meetings.

The service had business continuity plans for emergencies including staffing arrangements – for example, adverse weather or a flu outbreak.

Team managers had access to information to support them with their management role. This included information on the performance of the service, staffing and client care. Information technology supported them to do this.

Information was in an accessible format, and was timely, accurate and identified areas for improvement. Staff were knowledgeable of how to access information to keep people safe and provide care.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement.

Directorate leaders engaged with external stakeholders – such as commissioners and Healthwatch.

Clients and staff could meet with members of the provider’s senior leadership team and commissioners to give feedback.

The service worked with partner agencies across Hull and local third sector organisations to promote joined up care and facilitate engagement/access. A client told us “There are lots of varied activities on offer, including the fishing group, employment support, and gym, plus support/education groups - he found the Living Safely and Intuitive Thinking group especially informative but also found them an “easy way in [to the service]”. We observed an external coffee morning which also provided access to further support.

The service took part in local community activities e.g. Pride events and a celebration of recovery event known as Hull Recovery Walk. Signage from this event was proudly displayed within the service.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service had a strong focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They always encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

Staff were given the time and support to discuss opportunities for improvements and innovation and this led to changes. The service has participated in research with Hull University into cocaine addiction with the use of monitoring watches to help identify environmental cues and triggers for cocaine use to develop cue exposure treatment (CET) which has not been fully explored previously for people living with cocaine addiction. The governance, data protection considerations are in place to allow the service to quickly become involved in research opportunities such as this.

The inhouse podcast which staff manage as an add-on to their daily recovery roles is dedicated to addiction, recovery and lived experience storytelling to challenge stigma and champion people in recovery and has an international following. It has also received award nominations and wins.

Innovations were taking place in the service during our visit. A new ketamine pathway was being developed, and the service was also supporting a women’s change programme in Hull.