The Care Quality Commission
  • Community
  • Community substance misuse service

Archived: Addaction Recovery Centre - Roscoe Street Liverpool

4 Roscoe Street, Liverpool, Merseyside, L1 2SX

Provided and run by:
We are With You

Important: This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

All Inspections

18 September 2018

During a routine inspection

Since July 2018, CQC has had the powers to rate substance misuse services provided by the independent sector. Planning for this inspection started before that date.

We found the following areas of good practice;

  • Clients told us they were treated with respect and could raise concerns without fear of discrimination.

  • Staff were aware of the vision and values of the service and were able to contribute to them.

  • Managers were approachable and staff told us there was a visible manager presence even during the transition between service managers.

  • Staff were given equipment to help them in their role.

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

  • Treatment and recovery plans lacked information and were not person centred

  • Risk assessments were not being completed fully.

  • Mandatory training compliance was low.

31 August 2016

During a routine inspection

We do not currently rate independent standalone substance misuse services.

We found the following areas of good practice:

  • Clients were positive about the service. They were provided with information about their treatment programme, and were treated with dignity and respect by staff.
  • Clients had a comprehensive assessment of their needs, from which a recovery plan was developed. This addressed each client’s drug usage, social, and physical and mental healthcare needs. Clients had a risk assessment, and their recovery plan incorporated these risks. Support and substitute prescribing was provided in accordance with national guidelines.
  • There were enough suitably skilled staff to provide care and support for clients. Staff received supervision and appraisals, and had completed mandatory and additional training. The service had a medical lead/GP and a non-medical prescriber, with sessions from a second GP and a consultant psychiatrist. The service had community recovery champions, who were people who had used substance misuses services.
  • The service had introduced and participated in a number of research projects and pilots. These aimed to improve the physical wellbeing and health outcomes for clients.
  • There were established pathways for referring clients to the service from the community detox services, GPs, the courts and the police. There were no waiting lists, and clients were usually seen within a few days of referral.
  • Staff identified and responded to risks and concerns. This included safeguarding, unexpected exits from treatment, and incidents.
  • Incidents, audits and complaints were reported, and reviewed locally and centrally.
  • The service monitored its performance, and its impact on clients. Information about the performance of the service was provided to commissioners and to Public Health England.

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

  • Recovery plans were not always written in a person centred way with clear goals.
  • Information leaflets were not accessible to all people who used the service.

7 August 2013

During a routine inspection

As part of our inspection we spoke with four people who used the service who told us they were happy with the care and support provided by Addaction - Dip. Comments we received included:

'They do all they can for you.'

'If I had a problem, I'd speak to my keyworker.'

'They're always honest with me and they're dead nice.'

'Everything I've asked for, they've tried to sort.'

People told us they understood the care, treatment and support choices available to them and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Staff at the service were knowledgeable about their role in relation to the safeguarding of vulnerable adults and children. There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs and the provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.

7 November 2012

During a routine inspection

During our visit we spoke with people who used the service and with staff. People who used the service understood the treatment choices available to them. Their needs had been assessed and treatment had been planned and delivered in line with their individual recovery plan. People told us that staff had worked closely with them to help them address their alcohol and drug use. People told us they had felt safe and supported by competent staff. They said they had felt confident in raising concerns if they had them. One person who used the service said, 'I've been here about 6 months, it's brilliant. My keyworker is the best, really helpful'.

We also contacted drug commissioning services in Liverpool to seek their views of the service. No issues of concern were raised.