CGL Drug and Alcohol Service Warwickshire

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. This key question has been rated Good. This is the first assessment for this service. This meant people were truly respected and valued as individuals; and empowered as partners in their care in a good service. Staff treated their clients with compassion and kindness. They respected clients’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs and supported clients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff involved clients in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Caring.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard of care. The service was exceptional at treating people with kindness, empathy and compassion and in how they respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff always treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with clients showed that they were discreet, very respectful and responsive, providing clients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. Clients told us the staff were very compassionate towards them and made them feel at home. They said the service was like no other, was so caring and went above and beyond in meeting their needs.

Staff supported clients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition in a very caring personable way. Staff directed clients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services.

Clients said staff treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them. They said staff were kind and encouraging in supporting them with their recovery.

Clients told us the staff are brilliant every time and they make them feel so comfortable and supported. One client told us they were very impressed and the quality is like what you would expect from a private rehabilitation unit.

A client spoke highly of the service and said CGL saved their life. 3 clients told us that there is no judgement, staff were well mannered and polite and they couldn’t ask for a better place. They said the service is really good and there were no complaints. A client told us, “I never thought I’d be sat here today as normal as I am.”

Feedback from all clients we spoke with was extremely positive. Clients said they felt supported, safe and well cared for by staff who ensured their individual needs and preferences were considered.

Clients told us they were involved in their care, attended meetings and were able to give feedback. One client said, “in the last 5 years, they never turned their back on me” even when being hospitalised.”

Clients told us goals were individualised and supported their recovery plans. Staff encouraged and their progress. One client told us, “Reduction has been fully supported, it’s all about you.” They had no concerns. Another client told us they did undergo a reduction and staff worked with them; they couldn’t say enough good things about them.

Clients spoke very positively about the recovery workers and comments such as “an absolute diamond,” and “the support is brilliant,” and “the staff are fantastic” were mentioned.

Staff understood the individual needs of clients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. Clients told us the programmes are developed around people.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about clients.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard of care. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The service took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The service made adjustments for disabled clients – for example, by ensuring disabled people’s access to premises and by meeting clients’ specific communication needs.

One client brought a dog in with them which was recognised as being positive for the client.

The staff always promoted safe spaces and let the client lead the session. They explore what support the client had and what they need and would help in any way they could. For example, some clients may not want the group session support so they would support to work around this. The support and treatment took into consideration of what would suit the client and what would work for them.

Clients told us it was all about them and what they wanted for their care and recovery. They were always treated as individuals and never compared to anyone else.

Staff ensured that clients could obtain information on treatments, local services, clients’ rights, how to complain and so on. Accessible information was available for clients if required. Managers ensured that staff and clients had easy access to interpreters and/or signers.

The provider was good at promoting people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff told us they ensured clients understood their care and treatment and helped them with their choices and their interests.

Easy-read information and access to leaflets with information in other languages was available for clients.

Staff followed clear protocols for following up with clients who unexpectedly exited treatment by choice. Clients could return to the service for further treatment as required. Staff described how they tried to promote client’s choice and control wherever possible.

Staff use an automated system to ensure clients leave with the next appointment booked. We saw evidence of this on care records with reminder text sent to the client. We observed staff calling the client before the appointment too. The service used a DNA (Do not Attend) policy and tried to reduce DNA by sending reminders to clients by phone and text. Staff told us there could be difficulties with those who were homeless but had close relations with the outreach nurse. If clients didn't have a phone with them, the service would provide a standard phone and charger.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard of care. The service was good in how they listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, clients. Clients told us that staff listened to and understood their needs, views and wishes. They provided examples of how staff were quick to respond to these and took action to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Many clients told us that staff had supported them in times of emotional distress or that they had reminded them of the care plans and goals when they felt at risk of relapsing. Clients told us staff arranged appointments at short notice and gave examples of when they had escalated their care to nurses within the service or to general hospital for emergencies.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues for each client. Care records showed that clients’ individual risks were recorded and updated. The recovery workers we spoke with had a good understanding of their client caseload and could provide examples of how they had responded to changes in risk.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard of care. The service always cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and was good at supporting and enabling staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Workers with lived experience could also relate to their clients. Staff felt positive and proud about working for the provider and their team. Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service.

Staff told us everyone’s views are respected and when suggestions are made, they were listened to. Staff told us concerns could be raised safely. Staff were co-operative and they told us concerns could be raised safely.

The service had a range of mechanisms to support staff in raising concerns and speaking up safely and constructively. These included staff forums, directorate led workers forums, anonymous staff surveys, and the whistleblowing policy.

The team manager told us they could have informal discussions as needed with the provider’s senior leadership team.

The provider recognised staff success within the service – for example, through staff awards. Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported. We saw evidence of 11 successes and compliments celebrated by the service which included a congratulations from the House of Commons MP following the launch event in Rugby.