Archived: Addaction - Boston

We do not currently rate independent standalone substance misuse services.

We found the following areas of good practice:

• The provider had low levels of staff sickness and no staff vacancies. Staff had completed mandatory training in safeguarding children and young people and safeguarding adults. The service did not use bank or agency workers.

• Staff received feedback and learning from incidents at weekly case management meetings. Minutes of these meetings were disseminated to all staff by email. Staff said they were supported by their line manager following incidents and were able to access the employee assistance programme if required.

• Staff received supervision every four to six weeks. Records of supervision were kept in staff files. Staff had received an annual appraisal. Staff said they were able to access specialist training to enable them to develop their skills. We observed staff interacting with clients in a caring manner.

• Clients we spoke with told us that staff were interested in their wellbeing and were respectful, polite and compassionate.

• The service had a key performance indicator (KPI) for waiting times. The target time from referral to treatment was three weeks. The compliance rate was 100% for this target in the 12 months preceding this inspection. The service operated extended hours one evening per week to assist clients who worked full time or could not attend day time appointments.

• Clients knew how to complain. Information about making a complaint was displayed in the waiting area, along with a suggestions box. Staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately.

• Staff said they enjoyed their roles and that the team was supportive and they worked well together. We saw positive interactions between staff members. There were opportunities for staff to undertake further training to develop their role.

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

• The service displayed advocacy information within the reception and waiting room area for clients. However, staff were unsure of how they would support clients to access independent advocacy services.

• Rooms where clients could be seen were adequately sound proofed. However, privacy screens were not in place, so clients could be clearly seen by others during their appointment.