Archived: Lifeline Southwark

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.