- Community substance misuse service
Archived: Southwark Adult Substance Misuse Service
Assessment report published 23 June 2026
Contents
Ratings - Community-based substance misuse services
Our view of the service
Date of inspection: 1 - 2 October 2025.
We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection at CGL Southwark as part of our inspection programme.
CGL Southwark is part of the larger Change Grow Live provider, which delivers a not-for-profit drug and alcohol treatment service nationally. CGL Southwark operates across 2 hubs located in Southwark (Camberwell Road, and Amelia Street).
The Southwark service offers specialist community-based support for adults and young people affected by substance misuse in the borough. It works collaboratively with local partners, including the NHS, social services, probation, GPs, and pharmacies, to deliver integrated care.
The service provides a wide range of tailored interventions, including clinical treatments such as opioid substitution therapy, detoxification, and prescribed medications. Medical clinics offer health checks, blood-borne virus testing, and vaccinations, alongside naloxone distribution to prevent opioid overdoses.
In addition to clinical support, the service offers psychosocial interventions such as one-to-one key working, group recovery programmes, harm reduction advice, and a needle exchange. Families and carers also receive support through structured interventions and professionals are offered training and resources.
Young people benefit from personalised sessions, peer group support, emotional wellbeing assistance, smoking cessation programmes, and signposting to services covering housing, education, employment, mental health, and financial support.
At the time of the assessment, approximately 1500 people were receiving treatment at the service.
The service registered at this location on 30 December 2022. This was the first inspection at this location. The service was previously delivered at a different location, which was inspected in October 2021.
At this assessment we rated the service as good. We spoke with 4 people who were using the service and 3 carers. We also reviewed the care and treatment records of 5 people.
At this assessment we found several areas of good practice.
We saw evidence of patient centred discussions in Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) meetings.
People, carers and partner agency stakeholders praised the staff as incredibly professional, sharing their view that CGL provides a “high-quality, safe service to our residents of all ages with evidence of commitment to service development and improvement.”
Feedback from some staff was positive. Staff described a safe working environment with the freedom to speak up, emphasising a supportive and learning culture, and their enjoyment of working at this service. However, others highlighted areas for improvement. Staff expressed a strong desire for more regular supervision and reflective practice sessions to support wellbeing and professional development.
Carers reported that mental health support and family focused work were highly valued, with positive outcomes for their relatives.
People told us that their experience was prompt and supportive, and reasonable adjustments were made according to need.
We found some areas for improvement.
We found breaches of regulation in relation to Regulation 12: Safe care and treatment. Mandatory training compliance was below expected levels. Only 40% of staff had completed refresher basic life support and anaphylaxis training. The provider could not demonstrate effective assurance that competencies were being maintained. Since our inspection, the provider has demonstrated improvements to staff training in response to the findings.
We found breaches in Regulation 16: Receiving and acting on complaints. Of the 15 complaints reviewed from the past year, 5 had not been fully reviewed or signed off. Since our inspection, the provider has reported improvements to their complaints processes.
We found breaches in Regulation 17: Good Governance, all entries on the risk register were overdue for review. The service’s audit activity failed to identify several of the significant issues found during this assessment. Since our inspection, the provider has reported improvements to their risk register processes.
We found breaches in Regulation 18: Staffing. We found that supervision was inconsistent, some staff felt unsupported, and by August 2025 the year-to-date average supervision compliance rate was 59%.
Staff said the narrow, steep staircase posed safety risks and limited accessibility, and the layout restricted suitable meeting spaces.
People told us that they “regularly observed a shortage of rooms, especially when they turn up or are having issues with scripts, and these conversations often took place in the waiting area in close proximity to others.”
The service’s health and safety risk assessment was 6 weeks out of date. The provider has since updated this risk assessment.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
People's experience of this service
We spoke with 4 people using the service and 3 carers. We also reviewed the care and treatment records of 5 people.
We found a combination of good practice and areas requiring improvement in the feedback provided by people.
Some people were positive about the quality of their care and treatment, “it’s been good, helpful for sure” and “it’s nice to feel comfortable, not to be judged”. Staff treated people with kindness and respect. People described keyworkers as “brilliant,” “mindful,” and supportive of personal circumstances, with some attributing their recovery to the service.
Carers praised mental health support and family focused work and reported positive outcomes for their relatives.
Some people highlighted areas for improvement. Such as long waits for prescriptions (up to 3 hours) were reported, and a “highly charged” waiting area.
People noted that groups were sometimes cancelled at short notice without notification, leaving individuals feeling vulnerable.
People also reported environmental concerns including a “chaotic” atmosphere, poor acoustics, and a lack of private spaces for sensitive conversations.