We are With You Wigan and Leigh

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.

We saw evidence in care records that decisions around care and treatment were made in collaboration with the client and their carers where appropriate. We saw evidence of discharge planning and that clients were supported to move on with the next steps of their journey.

Staff identified if a client had difficulty with translating speech or other communication problems and knew how to access support if appropriate.

However, there was a complaint that had been open to the service since January 2025 and no action had been taken to investigate the complaint or to reach an outcome. It was not clear why the complaint had not been investigated with an outcome reached or why this significant delay had occurred.

Client records did not always indicate or record whether clients had been offered a copy of their care plan.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff gave examples of how they had considered and adapted their approach to delivering care and treatment based on individual client needs and preferences. This included having open and honest conversations with clients about their needs and preferences, so that staff had a full understanding of the client. Staff that we spoke to could give examples of treating clients as individuals.

Clients generally felt that staff involved them in and helped them to understand their care and treatment. Clients gave mixed feedback about having access to their care plans, with some clients stating that staff had offered them a copy, whereas others stated they had not been. During our review of client records, it was not always clear or documented as to whether staff had offered the client a copy of their care plan and if this had been accepted or declined. Managers stated that staff should be documenting whether it had been offered and accepted or declined within a case note. We observed client records where this was not recorded.

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.

Staff supported clients to maintain contact with their families and carers. Managers noted that the involvement of families and carers was assessed with the client during the initial assessment around the individual’s support network. Staff would ask for consent from clients regarding any contact or involvement with families and carers. The service had a significant others group which was an opportunity for families and carers to attend and receive support and advice as needed. Managers stated that carers would be signposted on how to access a carer’s assessment if they wished.

The service offered support to veterans and had a noticeboard specifically about this in the reception of the Wigan location. The service had a veterans lead who was responsible for this area of work.

Managers advised that, for clients going into rehabilitation services, the service would consider their needs or responsibilities that they may need support with whilst the client is away, such as arranging care for any pets.

The service worked with other providers and community organisations to offer joined up care. Staff gave examples of how they linked in with local services to provide support to clients. The service offered community clinics for those clients who may not want or be able to travel to the service’s offices which staff noted helped to break down some of the barriers that could prevent clients from accessing services.

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.

Client records were electronic and stored securely.

Staff ensured that clients could obtain information on treatments, local services and other useful information. The service had noticeboards in the reception areas at both locations which provided information to clients. Managers advised that the service could provide leaflets in multiple languages and had used their client record system to review which were the most commonly spoken languages in the areas to help them tailor the leaflets for those clients.

Staff could also access a translation service and could get quick access to an interpreter if one was required for specific clients. Staff confirmed they were aware of how to access this and that they had used this when required.

The service had not always responded in an appropriate and timely manner to clients’ complaints about their care, treatment and support.

We reviewed a sample of complaints whilst on-site. There were 2 open complaints at the time of the assessment, one of which had been opened in July 2025 and the other in January 2025.

The service had not taken any actions in relation to the January 2025 complaint. Managers noted that an initial response to acknowledge the complaint was recorded on the system and would have been sent by the organisation's complaints team. This response was not recorded on the local system however the service provided evidence that the complaint had been acknowledged via email.

The complaint had been flagged internally to the Registered Manager on the 04 July 2025 who then allocated to one of the Operations Managers on 10 July 2025. There were no recorded investigations or actions on the system at the time of the assessment. It was not clear why the complaint had not been investigated with an outcome reached or why this significant delay had occurred.

The open complaint was also noted in the service’s internal audit report dated 24 April 2025 which stated that the complaint remained “open with no updates recorded”. It was a concern that, despite being identified through this audit, the complaint had still not been addressed and progressed. Following the on-site assessment, the Head of Service Delivery reviewed the lack of response to the complaint and established that the client had been contacted and apologised to by an operational manager within a week of the complaint being logged on the service’s system, although had not added any records or notes to reflect this. The service provided evidence that this was updated on their system on 24 July 2025. Therefore, whilst it was established the complaint had been responded to appropriately, it had not been recorded or updated on the internal systems until following the on-site assessment.

We also reviewed a sample of the closed complaints. The closed complaints all appeared to have been processed in a timely manner and with appropriate actions being taken. Although we were concerned about the significant delay in responding to and processing the open January 2025 complaint, the review of the closed complaints indicated that this did not appear to be a recurring issue or trend.

The service had received 12 formal complaints in the 12 months prior to the assessment, 9 in relation to Wigan and 3 for Leigh. Of the 12 complaints, 1 was upheld, 3 were partially upheld, 3 were not upheld, 1 was withdrawn and 2 were noted for feedback due to the complaint being in respect of another service provider. 2 complaints remained in progress.

Clients were aware of how they could make a complaint if they needed to. Staff knew how complaints should be managed and how they would support clients with this.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff ensured the needs of clients with mobility issues were met, for example, buildings were accessible. The service had wheelchair access and a lift at the Wigan location which could be used for clients with mobility issues.

There was adequate medical cover, and the service could access support from mental health services. Staff advised how they would access medical support or advice as required. Managers explained how staff would link in with mental health services for relevant clients.

Staff ensured clients had access to post-discharge care. The service had options for aftercare that clients could access, including working as a volunteer or attending the service’s 12-week community rehabilitation programme. Managers noted that clients were kept on the system for 6 months post discharge and that check-ins were undertaken with clients.

The service was easy to access. Staff planned and managed discharge well and had alternative pathways for people whose needs it could not meet.

The service had some flexible opening times to support access for those in full time employment. The service remained open in the evening for one day a week at each location.

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. Clients that we spoke to felt that they would be able to give their feedback about the service without any issues.

Staff received mandatory training in equality, diversity and inclusion with compliance rates of 77.3% for existing staff and 82.9% for new starters. The remaining staff were either in their 3-month refresh window period for the training or were new starters who were in progress with the training, meaning they were not considered to be non-compliant.

The service considered and addressed barriers to access for specific communities and those with protected characteristics. Managers were considerate about the needs of specific communities and client groups and noted how they would adapt the service offer to attempt to meet the needs of these clients.

The service offered community clinics for those clients who may not want or be able to travel to the service’s offices. Staff explained that these had a positive impact on specific clients and were keen for more community clinics to be utilised by the service going forward.

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 supported clients to make decisions about their care and treatment and their future. Staff created personalised care plans to account for the client’s needs, wishes and feelings. Clients that we spoke to generally felt involved and informed about their care and treatment.

The service had a palliative pathway for people nearing the end of their life. Staff described how clients were supported in this pathway and how communication was managed in a sensitive and dignified way. Managers noted that the service would adapt its approach to ensure that staff were meeting the needs of these clients.