CGL Peterborough Aspire

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.

People were able to access the service when they needed it. The design, layout, and furnishings of the environment supported patients’ treatment, privacy and dignity. The service met the needs of all service users – including those with a protected characteristic. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the result.

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

This service scored 79 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

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.

Staff made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and worked with service users to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs. Staff told us that treatment was dependent upon the individual, their pathway and preferences.

The service provided psycho-social therapy groups and individual sessions to meet the needs of people who used the service. A timetable of available groups was displayed at the service. People we spoke with told us the groups were meaningful and supportive.

Service users could attend mutual aid groups that were accessible in their own language, which reflected the demographics of the community. For example there were Polish and Lithuanian speaking alcoholics anonymous groups and Russian speaking narcotics anonymous groups available.

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.

The service understood the diverse needs of the people they supported. The service did outreach work into areas including homelessness. The service had a rough sleeping team and were able to work from a local homeless hub. There was also a housing support team and people we spoke with told us they had received support with housing.

Staff supported people to maintain contact with families and carers. The service ran a weekly group called ‘butterflies’, which was a group for families and carers to attend to receive support.

Staff supported people to have access to education and work opportunities. Staff also signposted people to a local recovery college.

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 had access to the equipment and information technology needed to do their work. Information governance systems included confidentiality of service user records.

Leaders had access to information to support them with their management role. This included information on the performance of the service, staffing and training. This information was monitored and discussed by service leaders.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed. The service submitted notifications to the Care Quality Commission in accordance with the requirements of their registration. The service submitted safeguarding referrals to the local authority.

Staff made sure people could access information on treatment and local services. Service users were given information on harm reduction and signposted to local services where appropriate. The service had developed strong working relationships with many local services to support people. The service also worked with partner agencies to provide more of a holistic service to people, such as support with housing and homelessness. Staff displayed information about treatment support and local services. Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by service users.

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.

People knew how to complain or raise concerns. People told us if they had any complaints, they would speak with their allocated worker in the first instance.

Staff understood the process for handling complaints. All complaints were documented and assessed to establish the appropriate action to take. People received feedback after the investigation into their complaint. The service received 19 complaints between October 2024 and September 2025. The service monitored complaints for any themes, and the highest identified theme of complaint was the effectiveness or quality of service provision. The service identified learning and implemented changes following complaints where appropriate.

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 was easy to access. The service was open to anyone requiring help with substance use in the county. People could drop in and receive an assessment or access the service online or via telephone and book an appointment. This meant that there was not a long waiting list for initial assessment.

The service had a process to prioritise urgent referrals, and ensured that service users with higher risks, such as anyone using high risk injection sites, were assessed at the earliest opportunity. Pregnant women and vulnerable women were fast-tracked into treatment. They waited no more than 24 hours between assessment and prescribing. Close working with the local hospital supported this process.

The service was open late 2 days per week. People who used the service told us they knew who to contact if they were in crisis and out of hours.

The service had a worker placed in the local hospital, which meant people could be supported to access the service directly from hospital. Similarly, the criminal justice team started working with people upon release from prison.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. Staff and leaders were innovative in how they listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Staff and leaders actively used this information to provide exceptionally tailored care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff engaged with people who found it difficult to engage with services. There were dedicated outreach workers for those experiencing homelessness and street sex workers. People from an Eastern European background could access mutual aid groups that were spoken in their own language.

Staff identified that housing issues impacted a lot of people who used the service. Staff supported people to maintain or gain tenancies. The service had funding available to pay rent deposits and purchase white goods under a housing support grant. Leaders arranged for a housing service to carry out a weekly drop in at the service where people could access support and receive housing assessments. Outreach workers worked in a homeless hub to support people to access the service.

Staff and leaders made the service more accessible to people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. The service was able to provide people with bus passes and food bank vouchers. Staff worked within local GP surgeries to support people who preferred to access the service in a more discreet way. Staff and leaders recognised that providing holistic support improved people’s ability to engage in the service.

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 collected feedback from people who used the service, their families and carers. We reviewed the feedback shared with the service from July 2025 to September 2025 and the feedback was positive. The service additionally ran monthly service user pulse surveys. All feedback was collated, and themes were identified.

Staff completed training in equality, diversity and inclusion. The compliance rate was 100%. Staff completed training in learning disabilities and autism, and the compliance rate was 80%.

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.

Staff supported people to make decisions about their care, treatment and their future. Discharge was dependent on the individual, their needs and their pathway. People had access to support with discharge planning. There was a recovery focussed worker, people had the option to attend the recovery hub, continue to have check ins and continue to attend mutual aid groups if they wanted to.

There was a process in place to support people who did not attend appointments to try to re-engage them into the service. Staff contacted other agencies and tried all possible means of contact, including social media to try to ensure people were supported.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs. There was a nursing team as well as staff with specialist knowledge of opiates, non-opiates, alcohol, criminal justice and other specialist pathways. The service had developed positive links with other agencies and signposted people to them where appropriate to ensure they received the right support. Leaders developed good working relationships with other partner agencies and supported the management of complex needs.