The Care Quality Commission
  • Residential substance misuse service

Archived: Long Yard

8-9 Long Yard, London, WC1N 3LU (020) 7404 1117

Provided and run by:
ARP Charitable Services

All Inspections

25 and 27 January 2016

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out a focused inspection of Long Yard on 25 and 27 January 2016. The inspection checked the safety and effectiveness of the service.

Some aspects of the service were not safe. Risk management plans and care plans were not always comprehensive and clients were at risk of not having all their needs met. Staff did not consistently administer medicines safely. Staff had not always kept accurate records in relation to clients’ medicines. Staff had not ensured that medicines were always stored at the correct temperature. The provider did not have robust arrangements to ensure prescriptions pads were kept securely and there was a risk they could be misused. Staff made observations on clients’ health during alcohol withdrawal. However, staff had not always recorded how decisions about the type and frequency of observations had been made. Clients were at risk of not being observed at the appropriate level to identify risks to their health at the earliest possible stage. Since the inspection, the provider has ensured any discussion staff hold with the contracted doctor about observations are always recorded.

A suitably qualified contracted doctor assessed the medical needs of clients referred to the service and provided appropriate treatment and medical monitoring of clients which complied with NICE guidance. The provider had begun to take action to improve the accuracy and thoroughness of record-keeping but some further improvements were required. Staff were appropriately trained and supervised in relation to working with people undergoing alcohol withdrawal treatment.  

14 March 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This report is a follow up to our report published in October 2013. We had inspected this provider on 23 September 2013, when we noted some issues which we judged had a minor impact on people using the service. It related to standards regarding staff support. People were not being cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard. This was because staff were not receiving formal feedback on their performance through an annual appraisal.

During this inspection we found that the provider had taken action to address our concerns from the last inspection. Three members of staff and the team leader, whom we spoke with, confirmed that they had a regular supervision and an annual appraisal. We saw evidence of staff supervision, annual appraisal and training programmes in the staff files. This meant staff were supported to deliver care and treatment safely to an appropriate standard.

We also noted that the provider had appropriate arrangements in place in relation to obtaining, administration and storage of medication. We saw that medication administration record sheets were in order and records were kept of all medicines brought to the home or sent to a pharmacist for disposal.

23 September 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with people who used the service who told us about the activities they were involved in and how the staff had assisted them to identify their own specific goals. People said that the staff were "very helpful" and that "they made time for you." People told us about the group activities they had been involved in and people commented that they had learnt "different perspectives" from other members of the group. We observed staff interactions with people were appropriate and professional.

Staff had undertaken individual assessments of people's needs. People we spoke with confirmed that they had been assisted to identify their own goals with their key workers and we saw evidence that care and treatment plans were drawn up on an individual basis. We saw that staff made appropriate and timely contact with medical practitioners and that individual medication needs were documented.

We saw that the accommodation was of a suitable design and layout. We also noticed that the premises were adequately secured. The provider showed us that the staff group were receiving appropriate training, induction and on-going supervision; however, we found that staff did not receive feedback on their performance in the manner of a formal appraisal.

We found evidence to show that the provider had measures in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service and that a formal complaints policy was in place. There were mechanisms for people who used the service to make comments and suggestions about the service anonymously.

24 December 2012

During a routine inspection

On the day of the inspection there were seven people using the service and five staff on duty. We were able to speak to all the staff and to the majority of people using this service.

People told us that staff treated them with respect and dignity. They told us that they could speak to the staff and manager on any matter and that their views were regularly sought by staff.

People also told us they had good access to health care professionals such as doctors, district nurses, dentists and chiropodists.

People who use the service indicated to us that they felt safe at the home. They told us

they had no concerns about their care but would speak with staff if they did.

12 May 2011

During a routine inspection

People told us that they liked staying at Long Yard and that it was a welcoming and professional service. They said that staff respectfully helped them achieve them achieve their goal of safely detoxifying from alcohol and drugs before moving onto to other rehabilitation. People were provided with information before coming to the service so they could decide if it would meet their needs.