My Recovery Tameside

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect and involved as partners in their care. Staff treated people with compassion and kindness. They understood the individual needs of people using the service and supported them to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff involved people in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

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

The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with people using the service evidenced that they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing people with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. During our time at both sites, we observed staff speaking respectfully and compassionately to people and we observed a recovery group session at Hyde where the facilitating staff had created an environment of mutual respect and support for the participants, where people could be themselves and speak openly about their challenges and successes in the preceding week.

Staff supported people to understand and manage their care and treatment. All the records we reviewed evidenced that the person had been involved in developing their recovery plan and people had access to regular one-to-one sessions with a named recovery coordinator as well as medical reviews every 6 months. The people we spoke with told us that they felt involved and well supported by staff.

Staff directed people to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services. We saw evidence in the records, and some people told us, of how staff supported clients in engaging with other services including mental health, housing and children’s safeguarding. Information about a wide range of relevant services was displayed in the reception areas of both sites, along with leaflets people could take away with them. The service also had funding for an Individual Placement and Support (IPS) programme which enabled them to support people using the service in accessing paid employment and some of the people we spoke with told us they had benefited from this.

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards people using the service without fear of the consequences. All the staff we asked about this said they felt safe to speak up if they were concerned. The registered manager told us that the organisation had a confidential freedom to speak up process which staff were reminded about at team meetings and meeting minutes confirmed this.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about people using the service. People’s care records were stored on a password protected secure online system which was used across all CGL services. Staff received data protection and information governance training as part of their mandatory training and at the time we inspected 93% of staff were up to date with this.

The premises at Ashton were not fully accessible as there were no room large enough for group activities on the ground floor and there was no lift. Other than this, the service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

At Ashton there was no lift on the premises so people with mobility impairments could not access the rooms on the upper floor. There were meeting rooms and an accessible toilet on the ground floor which were accessible, however some people using the service did comment to us that they had limited access to group sessions at Ashton due to not being able to access the upper floor. At Hyde there was a lift and all areas of the building were accessible.

Staff understood the individual needs of people using the service, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. Any specific needs or protected characteristics an individual had were captured in their care records and taken into account in how the service was delivered, as far as possible being in mind the environmental limitations at Ashton. The registered manager told us that all aspects of each individual’s personal circumstances, including their personalised sources of support and ‘recovery capital’, were identified through their one-to-one work with recovery coordinators. All staff received equality, diversity and inclusion training as part of their mandatory training and 100% of staff were up to date with this at the time we inspected.

The service made reasonable adjustments for clients with sensory disabilities, for example by meeting clients’ specific communication needs. The registered manager told us that an interpreting service was available for people whose first language was not English, this included people who used British Sign Language. Staff ensured that people could obtain information on treatments, local services, clients’ rights, how to complain and so on. This information was displayed clearly in the reception areas of both sites. Staff completed training on meeting the needs of people with a learning disability and autistic people and 98% of staff were up to date with this at the time we inspected.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Care records we reviewed evidenced that people using the service were supported to develop person-centred, individualised goals for their recovery with their recovery coordinators.

People using the service told us that staff supported them to engage with a range of authorities to develop more independence as their recovery progressed. This included working with housing providers, child protection teams and mental and physical healthcare services.

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues and care planned for these accordingly. All clients had a person-centred risk assessment completed when they started using the service and this was kept under regular review and was updated if risks changed.

During our time at the Ashton site there was an incident of verbal aggression between clients in the reception area. This was responded to promptly and effectively by staff and measures were put in place to minimise the risk of a recurrence and safeguard both individuals. The people we spoke with told us that the staff at the service were responsive and available to them when they needed support.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

The provider had effective systems in place to support staff wellbeing, including a paid wellbeing hour once a week for all staff, acupuncture, reiki and meditation sessions available on site, free counselling through an employee assistance scheme and social events. The service also offered ‘living with loss’ support to staff impacted by bereavement both personally and in relation to clients. Team meeting minutes evidenced discussion of staff wellbeing issues, including opportunities for staff to make suggestions for new wellbeing initiatives. The staff we spoke with all said they felt respected, valued and well supported at work. Staff felt positive and proud about working for the provider and demonstrated commitment and dedication towards improving the lives of their clients. Successes were recognised at the service on an ongoing basis through a “Positives” virtual videoconferencing chat thread and as standing agenda items at team meetings. However, 2 members of staff did say they felt that the successes of the service could be celebrated more visibly and frequently.

There were forums for staff to give feedback on their experience to the provider including team meetings and quarterly workers’ representatives’ meetings. Staff supervision meetings and appraisals included conversations about career development and how this could be supported. The staff we spoke with said they felt well supported in relation to their training needs and career development. Staff told us that the biggest challenges they faced were high caseloads and limited funding for the service but also spoke positively about how they were supported and the innovative ways they worked together as a team to make the most of their allocated budget. Staff also told us they felt well supported in relation to their personal safety at work, with measures in place to ensure they were not expected to work alone where there were any potential risks. No concerns about bullying or harassment at work were raised by staff at the service in the 12 months prior to our inspection and rates of formal grievances were low (only 1 received in the 12 months prior to our inspection).