The Care Quality Commission
  • Community
  • Community substance misuse service

Archived: Swanswell Kidderminster

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

109-111 Coventry Street, Kidderminster, Worcestershire, DY10 2BH

Provided and run by:
Swanswell Charitable Trust

All Inspections

23rd and 24th October 2018

During a routine inspection

We rated Swanswell Kidderminster as good because:

  • The service kept people safe from avoidable harm by ensuring there were sufficient staff with the right training, supervision, knowledge and skills. Risk assessments were thoroughly completed and care was planned around the client’s individual needs. Staff had good awareness of safeguarding issues, they followed the service’s lone working policy, incidents were reported, and lessons learnt were cascaded to staff.
  • Staff used best practice and national guidance to complete comprehensive assessments, which enabled the development of personalised and holistic recovery plans detailing the appropriate treatment and care.
  • Staff worked closely together and with external partners to ensure clients’ received effective and consistent care and treatment, and monitored outcomes regularly.
  • Clients told us staff treated them respectfully and with dignity, and they were involved in their own care. They felt they were listened to and both clients and carers were provided with relevant information and support to manage their recovery. The service invited feedback which was shared at a local and national level.
  • The service responded to clients quickly and managed their caseload effectively to ensure they could provide care when the client required it. The service was meeting its targets and dealt with complaints effectively.
  • The service supported clients to access work, education and mutual aid to enhance their recovery and was accessible to those people protected under the disability and discrimination legislations.
  • There were good governance arrangements in place and experienced managers and staff monitored the quality of the service they provided through the use of audits, client feedback, incidents and complaints and key performance indicators. Staff were positive about the service and their managers.
  • The service encouraged innovation and had implemented quality improvements across the service to enhance the service they provided to their clients.

14 to 15 September 2016

During a routine inspection

We do not currently rate independent standalone substance misuse services.

We found the following areas of good practice:

  • The service had a good mix of suitable staff at a local level. This, alongside the support from staff in the county-wide service, enabled them to meet local need. Staff turnover had become low and the staff team was very positive and supportive of each other.

  • The premises minimised risk to clients and staff, as facilities and equipment were properly maintained and checked. Staff were properly checked to ensure they had no criminal convictions that might bar them from working with vulnerable people.

  • Initial risk assessments were prompt and thorough which helped maximise safety for clients, staff and other vulnerable adults. Safeguarding procedures were in place, staff reported and learned from incidents. The service was open and transparent with clients.

  • Medicines and prescriptions were managed safely. Vaccines and emergency medicines were stored safely and were accessible.

  • Staff showed a good understanding of the needs of clients and responded to them in a positive manner. Staff followed national guidelines in the treatment and support of clients, with appropriate clinical support and signposting to other agencies. Recovery workers supported clients to access essential services such as housing, benefits and employment.

  • The service had developed positive links with police, probation and local authority safeguarding. Although there was no dual diagnosis protocol, the service worked positively with community mental health services to help meet the needs of clients who had mental health as well as substance misuse issues. The service worked well with GPs under shared care protocols, to ensure they addressed physical health needs as well as recovery and relapse prevention.

  • The service used treatment outcome measures and worked with commissioners to improve its effectiveness in supporting clients. It had produced a thorough audit after it had been awarded the contract and had used the results of this to identify and improve areas of shortfall.

  • Clients were fully involved in their treatment and care. Staff supported them to make informed choices. Clients were appreciative of the time and approach of staff. The service was able to meet the diverse needs of clients.

  • The service responded to referrals in a timely and proportionate way, and saw clients within agreed timescales. Clients who did not attend appointments were followed up by the service to minimise risk and support their well-being.

  • Clients were able to make complaints and were confident the service would respond appropriately.

  • The service supported clients in recovery to become mentors and volunteers.

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

  • Staff take-up of mandatory training in risk assessment, care planning and case note recording was low. Although case note recording was good, risk assessments and care plans were not routinely and regularly updated. Recovery tools, such as audits of alcohol use, were not always present in care plans.

  • The service did not provide consistent training to enable staff to deliver psychosocial interventions where appropriate. As a result, there was little evidence of such interventions taking place, except on the initiative of individual staff who were already trained and confident in these areas.