You are here

Archived: Shardale Specialised Therapeutic Community

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Updated 21 July 2016

We do not currently rate independent standalone substance misuse services.

We found the following areas of good practice:

  • There service was clean and well maintained. Maintenance records were up to date and comprehensively completed. There were good health and safety arrangements in place regarding cleaning and kitchen use. Staffing levels were adequate for the service with no use of bank or agency staff. Staff understood their responsibilities in terms of safeguarding. Staff completed thorough risk assessments. Medicines were managed safely including self-medication.

  • Staff completed comprehensive needs assessments for clients and staff and clients developed recovery based, outcome focussed care plans. The treatment programme evidenced good practice guidance. Staff completed audits to check clinical care and the service supplied required information to the national drug treatment monitoring service. Managerial and clinical supervision took place regularly and all staff received an annual appraisal.

  • Staff respected clients and valued them as individuals. Feedback from clients was positive about the way staff treated them. There was a strong, visible client-centred culture. All clients had full involvement with their treatment throughout their stay. Carers gave positive feedback on the service and the staff.

  • Admissions were planned with clients able to visit the service and spend time there prior to admission. Discharge planning began at admission and a clear plan and outcomes were devised to work within the timescale set. Staff worked with clients to prevent unplanned discharges.

  • There was good provision of rooms and space for therapy. The treatment programme provided activities for clients seven days a week. The rehabilitation programme included free time and dedicated time for clients to spend with their key worker.

  • There was a good governance structure to oversee the operation of the service. There were clinical governance plans in place with regular review and audit.

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

  • The service currently has no registered manager.
  • Staff were not up to date with all mandatory training.
  • Staff did not have any further training provided in terms of substance misuse or therapeutic approaches or training in running group work programmes.
  • Staff do not receive training in understanding the Mental Capacity Act.
  • There was no Mental Capacity Act policy.
  • There was no Duty of Candour policy.
Inspection areas

Safe

Updated 21 July 2016

We do not currently rate standalone substance misuse services.

We found the following areas of good practice:

  • The service was clean and well maintained.
  • There were good health and safety arrangements in place regarding cleaning and kitchen use.
  • All staff had attended fire safety training and there were regular fire drills.
  • Maintenance records were up to date and comprehensively completed.
  • Staffing levels were adequate for the service with no use of bank or agency staff.
  • Risk assessments were thorough and reviewed regularly.
  • Medicines were managed safely including self-medication.
  • All staff were aware of safeguarding and knew how to raise concerns.
  • There had been no serious incidents in the previous 12 months.

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

  • The service currently has no registered manager.
  • Staff were not up to date with all mandatory training.
  • There was no policy outlining Duty of Candour.

Effective

Updated 21 July 2016

We do not currently rate standalone substance misuse services.

We found the following areas of good practice:

  • Staff completed comprehensive needs assessments for clients.
  • Staff and clients developed recovery based, outcome focussed care plans.
  • Physical healthcare needs were addressed in liaison with a local GP service.
  • The treatment programme evidenced good practice guidance.
  • Staff completed audits to check clinical care.
  • The service supplied required information to the national drug treatment monitoring service.
  • Staff were supported to complete additional health and social care training.
  • Managerial and clinical supervision took place regularly.
  • All staff received an annual appraisal.
  • Staff maintained links with commissioners.
  • Clients were supported to access community organisations and volunteering opportunities.

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

  • Staff did not have any further training provided in terms of substance misuse or therapeutic approaches or training in running group work programmes.
  • Staff did not receive training in understanding the Mental Capacity Act.
  • There was no Mental Capacity Act policy.

Caring

Updated 21 July 2016

We do not currently rate standalone substance misuse services.

We found the following areas of good practice:

  • Staff respected clients and valued them as individuals.
  • Feedback from clients was positive about the way staff treated them.
  • There was a strong, visible client-centred culture.
  • All clients had full involvement with their treatment throughout their stay.
  • Clients who told us they were fully involved in developing care plans and planning outcomes.
  • Clients were encouraged to feedback about the service and understood the complaints procedure.
  • Carers gave positive feedback on the service and the staff.

Responsive

Updated 21 July 2016

We do not currently rate standalone substance misuse services.

We found the following areas of good practice:

  • Admissions were planned with clients able to visit the service and spend time there prior to admission.
  • Discharge planning began at admission and a clear plan and outcomes were devised to work within the timescale set.
  • Staff worked with clients to prevent unplanned discharges.
  • There was good provision of rooms and space for therapy.
  • The treatment programme provided activities for clients seven days a week.
  • The rehabilitation programme included free time and dedicated time for clients to spend with their key worker.
  • Client’s cultural and religious needs were identified through assessment.
  • Adjustments were made according to need and agreed at the pre-admission assessment, for example, mobility issues.
  • There was a complaints and concerns book to capture both verbal and written complaints.

Well-led

Updated 21 July 2016

We do not currently rate standalone substance misuse services.

We found the following areas of good practice:

  • The service had clear visions and values.
  • There was a good governance structure to oversee the operation of the service.
  • There were clinical governance plans in place with regular review and audit.
  • Staff received appropriate appraisal and supervision.
  • Personnel files were well maintained.
  • Staff felt there was good morale and support within the service.
  • There was a commitment to gathering feedback and improving the service.

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

  • The service manager and nominated individual were aware that staff training was not up to date

There were no policies in place for Mental Capacity Act or Duty of Candour.