We are With You North Lincolnshire

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.

Good: This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. Staff supported clients with appointments and groups, undertaking assessments and providing information were required. The service met the needs of all clients – including those with a protected characteristic. Staff helped patients with communication and neurodiverse needs. 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 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional at making 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 consisted of different teams which enabled staff to work within their interests and experiences. It also ensured consistent support was provided to meet the needs of all clients. The teams comprised of criminal justice, opiate, alcohol, family and outreach recovery workers. The service also had support from a specialist substance misuse social worker, transitions worker working with young people under the age of 24 and an individual placement and support worker. The service also provided a hospital liaison and attended the local general hospital 1-2 times a week to capture any new clients or current clients that were inpatients and to educate and encourage hospital ward staff to refer into treatment.

Staff we spoke with gave examples of how they based client care around individual needs and preferences, for example staff told us about how they can be creative for monitoring alcohol intake if clients were unable to complete diaries. The examples also showed how the staff support and empower clients to make their own decisions about their care and treatment.

Staff developed care plans with clients, and we were provided with good examples from both staff and clients about how goals were developed to identify the client’s strengths and develop their recovery capital.

We spoke with commissioners and external partners who told us that the service was forward thinking and had an awareness of emerging needs in the community and how the service could best meet these needs. Commissioners told us, “any issues we work together to move forward, they are really responsive, forward-thinking service, open and transparent.”

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service had an exceptional understanding of the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service had developed partnerships with other services to help meet the needs of clients, supported people to have access to education and work opportunities and collaborated with other providers to offer joined up care in terms of psychosocial interventions, supporting homeless and roofless people, domestic abuse service, mental health services and support for veterans. Staff supported clients to maintain contact with people and things important to them.

The service employed a community engagement coordinator who organised and attended multiple events in the community raising awareness of substance misuse and service provision. In 2025 the service held a wellbeing event at the service and invited mental health, carer support, education, employment and wellbeing such as acupuncture tasters and fibro scanning. We reviewed the feedback provided regarding this event which included feedback which commended the event as being well-organised, engaging, and beneficial for both the public and the services involved. The event was reviewed and some potential improvements noted. Due to the success the service were planning a second event for June 2026.

The service had undertaken work to understand local demographics and the needs of the local community. For example, the service were working in partnership with the steel manufacturer in the local area and had a recovery pathway in place for people who required support and intervention to maintain people’s employment. The criminal justice recovery workers also supported outreach in the area with the police to offer advice and promote referrals with people who they stop, as appropriate. We received feedback from external partners who told us that the service had an experienced team who were proactive and responsive to the specific needs of people presenting at the service. An example of this was the creation of a local peer support network for Ketamine users incorporating lived experiences, urology, community treatment and health promotion to support this client group.

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 ensured that clients could obtain information on treatments and local services, and clients we spoke with gave examples of how the service shared information on local services. Staff ensured clients knew how to complain, survey forms were available to complete after any group sessions, and we saw evidence that complaints were taken seriously.

The service had developed a step by step recovery worker guide which was supported by an employee with neurodiverse needs and adjusted information to support this employee and future employees.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of client records.

Staff made notifications to all relevant external bodies as needed.

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.

The service recorded 1 complaint in the last 12 months which was upheld. No complaints had been referred to the Ombudsman in last 12 months. The service had not identified any themes or trends from investigating the complaints.

Clients knew how to complain or raise concerns and from the 1 complaint reviewed the client had received feedback. Staff also received feedback on the outcome of investigation of complaints from clients and acted on the findings.

Staff enabled clients to give feedback on the service they received. The service conducted a client survey in 2025 and received 36 responses. The results were analysed and any improvements highlighted were added to the services action plan.

The service provided support and signposting for families and friends of clients. The service attended the carers strategy meetings in the area and invited the carers service to present at a team meeting. The service were strengthening the referral pathway with the carers service.

The service also enabled commissioners and other community groups to give feedback about the service and input into service delivery.

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, the service had flexible opening times to support access from those in full-time employment and staff made reasonable adjustments for clients whenever possible.

Staff supported clients to access support from other services such as mutual aid groups, they planned and managed discharge well and had alternative pathways for people whose needs could not be met.

The service could access support from mental health services. Clients and staff we spoke with felt this was an area where support could be improved. Staff told us there were often challenges for clients accessing mental health services but to enable them to achieve abstinence they required support from these services. The service manager met with the local mental health provider regarding pathways and the mental health wellbeing practitioner vacancy.

The service had assessed the needs of the local community to ensure the service was able to treat the community it served. The community engagement lead and other staff attended multiple events in the community, such as observing annual celebrations, attending local festivals, colleges and universities and parent and child groups to advertise the service, educate and improve knowledge of and referrals to the service.

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.

The service collected feedback from clients and collected demographic information, analysed this information, and took actions to address any inequitable outcomes, considered and addressed barriers to access for specific communities and those with protected characteristics.

We spoke with the commissioner of the service who had recently undertaken a commissioning consultation prior to awarding the new contract. Commissioners told us that the service provided a quarterly contract monitoring report and that the service achieved great outcomes for clients. Commissioners informed us that any risks within the community were mitigated and worked on collaboratively.

The provider had undertaken equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage.

Staff were trained in equality, diversity and inclusion and compliance rates were 100%.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported by planning for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of treatment.

Staff supported clients to make decisions about their care and treatment and their future and clients we spoke with confirmed this was the case. Staff supported clients to create and review crisis and relapse plans and had a clear policy regarding engagement and action to take if there was an unplanned exit or discharge from the service.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies participated in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs, such as probation, social, homeless, domestic abuse and mental health services.