The Care Quality Commission
  • Community
  • Community substance misuse service

Archived: Lifeline Newcastle (Harm Reduction Service)

43 Clayton Street, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, NE1 5PN (0191) 261 4719

Provided and run by:
Lifeline Project

All Inspections

22 June 2017

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out this focused inspection of Lifeline Newcastle (Harm Reduction Service) to review remedial actions taken by the provider in relation to a regulatory breach. The inspection was unannounced.

When we inspected the service in December 2016, we found the provider was in breach of Regulation 12 (Safe Care and Treatment),Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This regulation was not being met, as we found that:

  • The provider had commissioned a fire risk assessment. This risk assessment identified a number of actions that were required to reduce the risks to clients and staff in the event of a fire. At the time of inspection, the service had not addressed all of the recommended actions in the report.

During this focused inspection, we reviewed the actions taken by the provider to address the issues raised in the previous inspection in December 2016. We were assured these changes had been made prior to the termination of the service.

At this inspection, we found that:

  • The provider had addressed the issues in relation to the breach of Regulation 12 (Safe Care and Treatment), Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, identified during the previous inspection in December 2016.

1 December 2016

During a routine inspection

We found the following areas of good practice:

Staff had the knowledge and skills to deliver a safe service. They were provided with opportunities to develop skills through further training. Staff had access to supervision and were encouraged to participate in service development.

Clients could access the service without an appointment. Staff carried out an assessment of needs including assessment of risk on first contact with the service. Staff knew clients well and looked to find opportunities to support clients with reducing harm around their injecting drug use and supporting their health and well-being. Clients could access the support of the registered nurse who offered blood borne virus screening and testing as well as other physical health support.

The service had a clear governance structure, which supported learning from incidents and complaints. Staff felt supported by the team leader and morale was good. Staff felt part of a team and were motivated to improve the service and outcomes for clients.

However, we also found areas that the provider could improve:

The service had not taken action to address all the findings of a fire risk assessment in February 2016. This meant that there was a risk to client and staff safety in the event of a fire.

During our inspection, clients initiated confidential conversations in the reception area. Whilst the clients were aware of who was present in the reception area, staff did not suggest moving into a private room to continue the conversation.

9, 12 August 2013

During a routine inspection

At the time of our inspection Lifeline Newcastle (Harm Reduction Service) was registered for the regulated activities of treatment of disease, disorder or injury, and Diagnostic and screening procedures. However the service had been unable to offer the types of care which falls under the regulated activity of treatment of disease, disorder or injury, such as wound care and vaccinations for some time, as we were advised the service had not employed a nurse since December 2013. Therefore we were unable to assess this regulated activity during this inspection. We were told by the registered manager that the service would soon offer those types of service again as a nurse had been recently employed.

At the time of our inspection the service did offer blood borne virus screening, which falls under the regulated activity of diagnostic and screening procedures. During this inspection we assessed this regulated activity.

We spoke with two people who had used the screening service who were very positive about the service they had received. One person told us, "Being able to walk in and get tested is great. It puts my mind at rest and helps me to know that I'm safe." Another person said, "I take my hat off to the staff for what they've done for me. They have explained everything that I need to know, and have got me in touch with loads of different services."

People told us that they had provided written consent before tests had been carried out, and told us they were confident their information was stored securely. One person said, "My privacy is paramount to the staff here. I know that they will keep all of my information confidential."

We found people's records were accurate and fit for purpose.

The provider had made suitable arrangements to protect vulnerable people from the risk of abuse

There were processes in place to ensure staff were of good character and suitably qualified to work within the service.

9 August and 4 September 2012

During a routine inspection

We saw people were given information about the service and the support and treatment available to them. We spoke with two people who visited the service during our inspection. They told us they were happy with the support they received.

People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about service which was provided. The service had asked people to complete satisfaction surveys. We reviewed the completed surveys and saw people's feedback was very positive. One comment on a survey said, "I've gotten to know the staff and they are very helpful. Not only with my drugs problem. They also helped in getting me a bed when I was homeless. They are all very helpful and friendly."

We reviewed three care records. We saw the records were clear and well-maintained and that treatment people received had been planned and delivered in a way that ensured their safety and welfare.

Staff received appropriate professional development and there was an effective system in place to make sure staff training was up to date so that staff could care for people safely and to an appropriate standard.

We found that the provider had made suitable arrangements to protect vulnerable people from the risk of abuse and that there was an effective system in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service.