The Care Quality Commission
  • Community
  • Community substance misuse service

Archived: East Kent Substance Misuse Service - Canterbury

39-41 Wincheap, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 3RX (01233) 655360

Provided and run by:
Turning Point

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

7-9 November 2016

During a routine inspection

We found the following areas of good practice:

  • The hubs and clinic rooms were clean, tidy and well equipped to meet client’s needs. All appropriate health and safety records were in order.

  • Turning Point’s ethos was to offer a person centred service to clients, with the aim to empower clients to be successful and take control of their lives. We saw evidence of this in how staff respected client’s views and wishes, as well as actively seeking client feedback. Clients told us that staff were respectful, supportive and non-judgemental.

  • Clients received a comprehensive assessment of their needs and a care plan was formulated jointly with their recovery worker. The hubs had an experienced staff team and clients spoke of having regular key work sessions.

  • Clients and carers spoke positively about the care and support they received from staff.

  • The organisation worked jointly with other agencies in order to offer a service to all clients and respond to clients individual needs.

  • There was an effective clinical governance process in place which ensured audits were undertaken and learning was disseminated across the hubs.

  • Staff received regular supervision and appraisals. The hub managers were very approachable and available to staff and senior managers visited the different hubs regularly.

  • The organisation operated a peer mentoring scheme for former clients offering training and the ability to develop skills.

However,

  • There was not a robust alarm system available at the hubs we visited. The services in the South Kent Coast (SKC) area had some alarms in rooms but Thanet did not have any. Hand held alarms were available but this was inconsistent. We brought this to the attention of the provider and they recognised the risk this posed to staff. Senior management addressed this whilst we were on our inspection and were looking at different alarm systems and requesting quotes.

  • Basic life support training was not part of the mandatory training for staff. This meant that not all staff were equipped to respond to an emergency situation.

9 January 2014

During a routine inspection

We spoke with three people who use the service, but were unable to observe treatment sessions as most people were reluctant to be identified to the inspectors. People were happy with the service they received, and told us 'I would have been in trouble if it wasn't for the support I received from staff', and another person said 'The treatment I received met my needs'. People told us and we found records which confirmed that staff involved people in their treatment plan, and included the person's input in determining goals to be achieved. We found that people were able to give consent to their treatment plan, or decline it if they felt it did not meet their needs.

We reviewed five treatment records, and found that they were comprehensive, with chronological information about the initial referral, assessments and treatment progression. We also spoke with two staff members and reviewed staff recruitment records. We found evidence of continuous supervision of the recovery workers, and staff told us that they felt well supported in their roles. We reviewed the arrangements for ordering, storing, administration and disposal of medicines, and found that there were policies and procedures in place which referenced current guidance. Staff told us that they were able to access the policies and procedures and found them useful and helpful. We found that medicines were stored appropriately, and audits carried out to ensure that stock was accurate.

We noted that the service manager carried out regular audits to monitor the quality of the service, and to ensure that the policies and procedures were being followed. We found that there was evidence of changes made after comments received from people, and the people we spoke with told us that they were able to feed back on their experience of the clinic.