My Recovery Tameside

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

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

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. Staff managed admissions to and discharges from the service well. The design, layout, and furnishings of the services supported people’s treatment, privacy and dignity. Staff supported people with life outside the service, in areas such as housing, work and education and family relationships to aid their recovery. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the result. The service usually met the needs of all people using it, including those with a protected characteristic, taking social and cultural needs into account, although accessibility for wheelchair users was limited at the Ashton site.

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.

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.

All the records we reviewed were person-centred and included identification of individual needs and preferences, such as individual strengths and goals, social and cultural needs and specific risks and perpetuating factors for their substance use. The people we spoke with told us that staff treated them as individuals and listened to their views.

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 registered manager told us how the service worked collaboratively with other stakeholders involved with each of their clients, including health and social care providers, housing providers and the criminal justice system, to ensure each person received joined up care which supported their recovery from addiction to the greatest extent possible.

Staff told us that Tameside was the first CGL service to maintain continuity of care for over 75% of clients on release from prison, and at the time we inspected they were achieving this for over 80% of relevant clients (compared with a national average of 50%).

We received very positive feedback from representatives of external stakeholders about how the service worked in partnership with them to meet each individual’s needs, including where these needs were complex. People using the service told us that they had a named recovery worker who they were usually able to see, which enabled continuity of care for them.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

There was a wide range of relevant information displayed on the noticeboards at both sites including harm reduction and safeguarding information, information about local relevant services and information about physical and mental health support which was available to people, both within the service and more widely in the local area. We saw evidence in the care records we reviewed that clients were always offered copies of their recovery plans. The people using the service we spoke with told us they were happy with the information provided by the service. The service made notifications to external bodies as required, we did not identify any failure to notify CQC of relevant incidents during the inspection and other stakeholders told us that the service communicated with them well.

The registered manager told us that there was a system in place to support provision of relevant information to people whose first language was not English, including British Sign Language users, through an interpreting and translation service.

Staff ensured carers and families were regularly updated about their relative’s progress where relevant. The service had a ‘concerned others’ worker who was responsible for ensuring families and carers were involved and kept up to date when the individual consented. They also offered an evidence-based structured programme of support for carers and family members. We received positive feedback from external stakeholders about the support provided by the service to carers and families, stating that the service had a holistic and family-focused approach which recognised the important contribution carers could make to people's recovery and wellbeing.

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 had effective systems in place for gathering feedback from and involving people using the service and, where relevant, their carers or families. The service sent out surveys to people using the service every 3 months about different topics and had a complaints process people could use to raise concerns if they needed to. They also held monthly client feedback sessions in the reception areas of both sites to engage with people attending for appointments and gather feedback from them. The client feedback surveys in the 12 months prior to our inspection evidenced an average of 92% of clients saying they were satisfied with the service (covering the period July 2025 to March 2026).

The service also worked closely with a lived experience recovery organisation, Recovery in Action, which had originally formed from a CGL group and now supports the wider recovery community in Tameside with weekly meetings, peer led support and social events. In February 2026, the service delivered a substance misuse roadshow, attending 7 locations across Tameside to engage with the local communities and deliver information about their services.

The people we spoke with confirmed they knew how to raise concerns about the service. In the 12 months prior to our inspection the service received 9 complaints, of which 3 were upheld, 3 were not upheld, 1 was partially upheld, 1 was referred to another service and 1 was still ongoing at the time we inspected. We did not identify any themes or trends of concern from the complaints data and the records evidenced that complaints were investigated and responded to in a timely manner. None of the people we spoke with told us they had experienced any discrimination as a result of having raised concerns about the service. The staff we spoke with knew how to handle complaints appropriately.

We saw evidence in team meeting and governance meeting minutes that information from complaints and client feedback was analysed and staff were informed about any lessons learned and the action taken in response. Some examples of improvements made in the 12 months prior to our inspection as a result of client feedback included improved record keeping in relation to declined referrals and follow-up attempts, improved multi-agency working with mental health services and an updated home visit procedure.

Clients with mobility needs did not consistently have their needs met at the Ashton service as they could only access the ground floor of the premises and some services, such as groups, took place on the upper floors. However, the service made reasonable adjustments in relation to protected characteristics otherwise, and usually made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

There was no lift at the Ashton service and some of the people we spoke with told us that they had limited access to group sessions in Ashton due to not being able to access the upper floor. There was a lift at Hyde and people with mobility needs could access all areas of the premises they needed to. At both sites there were meeting rooms, a needle exchange and facilities for urine drug testing on the ground floor which wheelchair users and other people with mobility needs could access.

The service did not have a waiting list at the time we inspected, and any new referrals could be allocated to a recovery coordinator without any delay. People using the service told us that appointments were not cancelled without good reason and said they received timely communication if an appointment did need to be rescheduled, for example due to unavoidable staff absence.

Records evidenced that people met regularly with their named recovery worker and had regular medical reviews throughout each episode of treatment they had with the provider. The service carried out extensive community engagement including partnership working with local services and the provision of appointments from 2 community cafes and a number of hubs to ensure people with more complex needs and those from vulnerable or disadvantaged groups could be supported to access the service.

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. People using the service who had complex health and social needs were well supported by the service, which worked effectively in collaboration with other care and support providers in the local community.

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 received training in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights as part of their mandatory training and at the time we inspected 100% of staff were up to date with this training module. Staff told us how people’s cultural needs were taken into account, for example in supporting people who were fasting for religious reasons and ensuring animal-product free medicines were available.

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 people using the service to make decisions about their care and treatment and their future. The care records we reviewed evidenced that people with complex physical health needs (which may be life-limiting), as a result of their substance use, were well supported by the service. We saw that staff worked effectively with other stakeholders in relation to each individual’s mental and physical healthcare where relevant and some of these external stakeholders also gave us positive feedback about this.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs, including at the point of discharge from the service, to make sure people continued to have the support they needed to sustain their recovery. This included signposting people to mutual aid groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous, supporting people to maintain contact with the service as a peer supporter and, in some cases, progressing into paid employment with the provider and through collaborative working with other relevant stakeholders such as housing providers and social care services.