06 October 2016
During a routine inspection
We found the following areas of good practice:
-
Clients gave universally positive feedback about staff. Clients told us that they thought that staff cared about their well-being beyond their use of substances and treated them like people. They told us they felt welcome at the service, safe and supported by staff.
-
We saw that staff knew clients well and treated them with respect and compassion. When new health treatments became available for a medical condition staff contacted clients who had used the service to inform them of this and supported clients to access this treatment through local health services.
-
Staff worked with agencies and in the local communities to increase awareness of the risks of substance misuse and the services and treatments available for people to access. We saw that this re-engaged some clients back into treatment for drug and alcohol use.
-
Psychosocial intervention skills were used in brief interventions and groups including cannabis groups and fixed penalty groups.
-
The service had a clinic room and a qualified nurse to deliver blood borne virus screening, vaccinations, basic wound and blood care. Emergency equipment was available and all medicines and equipment were in date.
-
Staff had knowledge of safeguarding procedures and could explain how they responded to safeguarding concerns.
However, we found the following areas that the provider needs to improve:
-
Clients’ initial assessments identified risks in relation to the individual and their substance use. However, the care and treatment records for clients receiving brief interventions did not contain a risk assessment or risk management plan. We could not see how risks to clients using the service were being managed or mitigated.
-
Care and treatment records did not contain a signed agreement to show if clients consented to sharing information and if they did consent what they agreed to share and with whom. However, staff and clients told us that this consent was agreed verbally.
-
The supervision rate for staff was 67%. This had been identified through a quality audit visit by the provider. The provider had an action plan in place to increase the rate of staff supervision and ensure that all staff received regular supervision.
-
Not all staff were up to date with all areas of their mandatory training.