Archived: Lifeline Southwark

Updated 9 January 2017

Lifeline Southwark provides advice, support and treatment for adults with drug and alcohol problems in the London Borough of Southwark. The service operates nine am to five pm two days a week and nine am to seven pm three days a week. At the time of the inspection, the service provided care and treatment for 1335 clients. The service had been operating for nine months. Prior to this seven separate services had been operated by four different providers.

The service is based on two sites, Cambridge House and Camberwell Road. The two buildings are near each other. The service has the following teams:

Engagement team – based in Camberwell Road, this team assesses new clients to the service. They also provide support and treatment interventions for up to twelve weeks. A needle exchange is also provided.

Recovery co-ordination – based in Cambridge House, the largest team, which provides support, treatment and liaison with other services. This team supports clients who have complex needs or require support in the longer term.

Recovery support – based in Camberwell Road, this team provides counselling, family work, facilitates group work and promotes wellbeing.

Medical team – Undertake medical assessments of clients and substitute prescribing

Psychology team – Undertake individual psychology and cognitive behavioural therapy with clients. Also provide training and support to the wider team, and oversee the psychosocial interventions programme

Data and administration team – Provides administrative and information support for the service

Blood borne virus testing is provided by a different service provider. Peer mentors are provided by a different service provider. A consultant physician in sexual health is employed by another service provider and attends the service every week.

Lifeline Southwark is registered to provide the following regulated activity:

Treatment of disease, disorder or injury

The service was commissioned by the London Borough of Southwark Drug and Alcohol Action Team.

There was a registered manager for the service.

The Care Quality Commission had not previously inspected this service.

Updated 9 January 2017

We do not currently rate independent standalone substance misuse services.

We found the following areas of good practice:

• The service recognised the importance of supporting clients to access facilities so they could look after their own care. Clients could use a microwave and laundry facilities, and could have a shower. A towel was provided to clients who did not have one.
• Staff carried out comprehensive assessments and risk assessments. Staff supported clients to manage risks.
• Clients care plans were detailed, holistic and recovery focussed. They identified clients substance misuse, emotional and social needs.
• The service communicated with a range of other organisations in an effective way. This minimised risks to clients.
• Clients were very positive regarding the staff in the service. They reported that staff were respectful, caring and provided them with emotional and practical support.
• Clients were prescribed medicines in accordance with best practice. They were able to access a range of psychological and psychosocial interventions.
• Clients were able to provide feedback to the service. Clients were involved in how the service operated.
• There was a staff culture of being open and transparent when mistakes were made. There was a strong culture of using mistakes, incidents and complaints as learning opportunities.

However, we also found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

• The provider did not identify training that was mandatory for staff and the frequency for it to be refreshed, to ensure they could undertake their duties effectively.
• The service did not always notify the Care Quality Commission of incidents as required.
• Less than half of the staff team had undertaken safeguarding adults and safeguarding children training although further training was planned.
• Staff employment records were not complete. The details of staff criminal record checks were not appropriately recorded and some staff did not have written references.
• Although some audits and systems were in place, these were not all ongoing and were not integrated. The systems for assessing, monitoring and improving the service over time were not sufficiently robust.