Archived: Counted 4 Community Interest Company

Updated 17 June 2016

Counted 4 Community Interest Company is commissioned by Sunderland City Council to provide pharmacological treatment for residents of Sunderland who have substance misuse issues including alcohol. The service is part of a community based treatment system where care coordination, psychosocial interventions and harm reduction are provided by other organisations. Counted 4 deliver the clinical component of the treatment system. Treatment is delivered in a range of community settings.

The service provides pharmacological interventions in the form of clinically supported alcohol detoxifications, relapse prevention, prescribing for opiates and assessment for inpatient treatment. Counted 4 works closely with the two other voluntary sector organisations as part of the commissioned treatment system and pathways are in place for clients.

Counted 4 are registered to provide the following regulated activities.

• Diagnostic and screening procedures
• Treatment of disease, disorder or injury

The service had a registered manager with CQC. Counted 4 was last inspected on 26 November and 9 December 2013. There were no compliance actions following this inspection.

Updated 17 June 2016

We do not currently rate substance misuse services

We found the following areas of good practice:

• There were enough staff to meet the needs of the clients. The service worked as part of a wider treatment system and referral pathways were in place. Premises were clean and tidy.
• Staff had the necessary skills to carry out their roles and were up to date with mandatory training. Staff were receiving good support from managers and supervision was excellent. This included 1-1, group, and external supervision for psychosocial and safeguarding.
• Staff knew how to report incidents and there was learning from these within team meetings. Procedures for safeguarding children and adults were in place, and understood by staff.
• Staff undertook clinical assessments and risk assessments. The provider had access to comprehensive assessments completed by the provider responsible for care coordination. Care plans were up to date and covered clinical aspects of treatment.
• Staff were involved in clinical audits. Local management was good and staff had support from the medical director.

We also found area that the provider could improve:

• Risk management plans were not in place, which meant that this information was not easily accessible to staff who were unfamiliar with the client.
• There were inconsistencies in staff carrying out drug testing of clients throughout treatment.
• The structure of the board meant that membership included the chief executive and medical director with no external members. This could lead to challenge about the transparency of decisions made at this level.