• Residential substance misuse service

Cornerways

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

20 Braidley Road, Bournemouth, Dorset, BH2 6JX (01202) 552536

Provided and run by:
Streetscene Addiction Recovery

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 19 March 2019

Cornerways is part of Streetscene Addiction Recovery Service. Cornerways is one of three substance misuse residential rehabilitation and detoxification services in Bournemouth and Southampton.

Cornerways has 20 beds and offers a 24-hour service for males and females. Clients receive treatment for substance misuse problems. There were 18 clients receiving treatment at the time of the inspection. The majority of the funding arrangements are through statutory organisations. However, the service does accept self-funders.

Cornerways has been registered with the Care Quality Commission since November 2006. The service is registered to provide accommodation for persons over 18 years of age who require treatment for substance misuse. There is a CQC registered manager in place.

We previously inspected Cornerways in February 2016. Cornerways was not rated at this inspection.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 19 March 2019

We rated Cornerways as good because:

  • Managers and staff shared a clear definition and vision of recovery for clients that was embedded throughout the service. Staff understood their roles in supporting clients in their recovery journey and treated them as partners in their care. Staff said they felt respected, supported and valued, and were proud of the work they did.
  • The provider actively worked to reduce barriers to treatment for their clients. For example, the service had admitted clients with their pets, purchased support from domiciliary care agencies for clients requiring personal care and employed a driver who collected clients when public transport was a barrier to treatment.
  • The ethos of the service was to go the extra mile for clients and put people before profits. The provider regularly provided free care to clients who had unmet needs but did not have funding available. The provider offered free aftercare for life to all clients after completion of treatment.
  • Staff were motivated and inspired to offer care that was kind and promoted dignity. Staffing levels were safe and there were plans in place to cover vacancies, sickness and annual leave. There was a positive culture within the house, staff felt respected and valued as members of the team and there was support from the registered manager. Staff received the specialist training needed to carry out their work effectively. Through safeguarding training and information, staff understood how to protect clients. Staff had two-monthly supervision and yearly appraisal.
  • The service was clean, well equipped, well-furnished and had good facilities. The design, layout, and furnishings of the service supported clients’ treatment, privacy and dignity and there were adaptations for people with disabilities.
  • The service manager proactively managed health and safety concerns. The manager completed environment health and safety checks, this included an assessment of ligature points and regular fire safety checks. The service had a de-choking device, ventilated pillows and an automated external defibrillator (AED) for use in emergencies. The provider encouraged clients to be active partners in managing their own safety and trained clients in fire safety and how to use an AED.
  • The service provided a therapeutic program based on National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. Both one to one counselling and group work was provided. Staff monitored and addressed physical health of clients in the house. Staff received mandatory and specialist training and they had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act.
  • There was no waiting list for the service. The service admitted urgent referrals, in some instances, in under 48 hours. Referrals were screened and assessed for suitability although there were no documented exclusion criteria as admissions were agreed on an individual basis.

However:

  • Staff did not complete comprehensive risk assessments for clients admitted to the service and there was no evidence of crisis planning. Staff did not complete individualised care plans for clients accessing the service. Staff did not document discharge plans. Staff kept a lot of information in their heads and this was not translated into the documentation. There were blanket restrictions in place.
  • Medicines were not always prescribed safely due to staff not using medicines reconciliation processes as routine. This means that staff did not routinely check that the medicines they were giving were the ones prescribed by the GP.
  • The service did not have sufficient governance systems in place to ensure sufficient oversight and risk management of incidents and safeguarding. Managers therefore did not monitor to look for trends, this meant that if the same incident kept on occurring then there was no oversight to look at the reasons why or for example, if there was a gap in staff training.