Archived: Turning Point - Leigh Bank

We do not currently rate independent standalone substance misuse services.

We found the following areas of good practice:

• Leigh Bank’s environment was safe and homely. Staff carried out regular health and safety and environmental risk assessments. There were sufficient staff on duty: staff were available to support clients on site during the day and by telephone out of hours. Care records contained a person-centred risk assessment and management plan. Incidents were investigated and lessons learned were fed back to staff. Staff were well supported to provide safe care.

• Clients identified their own recovery plans and staff worked with them to review their progress and goals. There was an evidence-based therapy programme to help clients recover from drug and alcohol dependency. Staff worked closely with a local GP to manage clients’ physical health needs. Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act.

• Clients told us that staff were caring and approachable. Clients spoke highly about the peer mentorship scheme. Clients were involved in identifying and reviewing their recovery goals. Clients had a say in how the service was run.

• The service had developed a day rehabilitation service so clients did not have to stay overnight. Clients were able to take part in daily activities such as gardening and cooking. The building could accommodate clients with physical disabilities with ramped access and a modified en suite bedroom on the ground floor. There were no complaints but there was information for patients on how to raise a complaint and a system in place to process and oversee complaints.

• Staff were committed to improving lives and helping clients recover. Managers were approachable and supportive. Key performance indicators were used to monitor how well the service was performing. There were regular quality assessment audits and governance meetings, with outcomes being fed back to staff.

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

• Urine testing arrangements did not follow best practice in infection control as they were being done on a cleared, covered desk in the ward office.

• Window restrictors in two of the rooms on the third storey were faulty. This had not been identified by the service’s health and safety checks.

• Transfer and discharge plans, including information to support unexpected exits from treatment, were not completed and filed in clients’ care records.