CGL Drug and Alcohol Service Warwickshire

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. Staff supported clients with activities outside the service, such as work, education and family relationships. The service met the needs of all clients – including those with a protected characteristic. Staff helped clients with communication, advocacy and cultural and spiritual support. Clients were supported by staff with opportunities to volunteer with the service.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

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

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed good standard of care. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

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 clients with their progress. One client told us, “Reduction had been fully supported, it’s all about you.” They had no concerns. Reduction means slowly and safely decreasing the amount of alcohol or drugs consumed over time. Another client told us they did undergo a reduction and staff worked with them; they couldn’t say enough good things about them.

Recovery workers received appropriate training to help support their clients and interact with them such as providing motivational support. Evidence in care records showed how staff individualised the care to suit their clients’ needs and to meet their aspirations.

Clients had good relations with their recovery workers and always spoke positively about how they have helped them with moving on and progressing with step-by-step improvements making them feel happier too. Evidence in care records showed progress and goals set and achieved.

The service delivered integrated support by collaborating with the local NHS trusts, social care, and housing providers to manage co-occurring conditions. Through shared care plans and multi-disciplinary teams, the service broke down traditional service barriers, by ensuring clients received simultaneous, holistic treatment for both substance use and mental health needs.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard of care. The service had a good understanding of the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

We spoke to the Individual Support Team staff who had lived experience and worked closely with clients to support them with work opportunities and help right from applications to interviews and contact with the employers. A lot of positive feedback was received from clients with this support.

When appropriate, staff ensured that clients had access to education and work opportunities. This was demonstrated through in full and individual care records and recovery plans.

Facilities and premises were appropriate for the services being delivered. Managers completed various health and safety checks, including fire alarm checks, clinical checks, and quarterly audits to review the environment at each site. There were also annual health and safety reviews carried out. The only concern that staff raised was the size of 2 of the hubs which could have been bigger.

Staff also worked with the police to improve safety and awareness for the community. Leaders told us 80 police officers were trained in the use of naloxone nose spray with plans to deliver this to a further 40 officers. The Commissioner was supportive with this.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed. These included statutory notifications to the CQC and safeguarding referrals to the local authority.

• The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Staff ensured that clients could obtain information on treatments, local services, clients’ rights, how to complain and so on. The information provided was in a form accessible to the client group. The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard.

There were easy read versions of leaflets and information provided to clients.
Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by clients. Staff ensured carers, families and commissioners were regularly updated about the client’s progress.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard of care. The service was good at enabling people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They always involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service was dynamic and responsive in enabling people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They always involved clients in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. The service had a culture of open and honest discussions, and any issues were dealt with immediately.

Managers investigated complaints, categorising these based on severity or impact. The service managed complaints effectively and actively encouraged clients to submit a complaint if they had concerns about their care. There was information on display about how to submit a complaint, and clients told us they knew how to do so.

No serious concerns or complaints had been raised about the service. Any concerns that clients or staff had would be addressed with key workers and managers first. The service had policies in place to manage complaints where necessary.

Clients told us they were supported by the staff team and attended meetings with a range of different professionals involved in their care.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard of care. The service was good at ensuring people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Managers could fast track new client referrals based on risk factors. For new referrals who were homeless, a member of the rough sleeper’s outreach team would visit them, normally within 24 hours of referral. The service supported and worked collaboratively with partners to ensure safety of the clients.

The provider worked with people to ensure key information about their care and support was communicated appropriately using easy read formats where required. There was access to an interpretation service which was quick and easy to use. A lift was available and home visits could also be offered. Some alcohol assessments were done in a different place to suit the client.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard of care. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views.

The provider had undertaken equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage.

Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard of care. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Staff support clients to make decisions about their care and treatment and their future. Staff created personalised recovery plans to account for the client’s needs, wishes and feelings. Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs. This included housing, social care and hospital services. The service supported clients to access clients to employment support services to prepare them for discharge.