You are here

SALUS - Withnell Hall - Health, Wellbeing & Addiction Treatment Centre Limited Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 20 November 2019

We rated SALUS – Withnell Hall Health, Wellbeing and Addiction Treatment Centre as good overall because:

  • The findings of this inspection mean the service is being removed from special measures.
  • The service had implemented an action plan following our last inspection that addressed all of our previous concerns. There was clear evidence that the service had improved.
  • The service provided a safe and effective psychosocial rehabilitation service (therapies and interventions that support recovery) for individuals with substance misuse problems. The environment was safe, clean and supported recovery. The service had enough staff. Staff assessed and managed risks associated with the client base and rehabilitation well.
  • Staff developed holistic, recovery-oriented care plans informed by a comprehensive assessment. They provided a range of treatments suitable to the needs of the clients and in line with national guidance about best practice.
  • Staff engaged in clinical audit to evaluate the quality of care they provided.
  • The service had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of clients and deliver a rehabilitation service. Managers ensured that these staff received training, supervision and appraisal. Staff worked well together as a team and with relevant services outside the organisation.
  • Staff treated clients with compassion and kindness. They understood the individual needs of clients. They actively involved clients in decisions and care planning.
  • The service was easy to access. Staff planned and managed discharge well and had alternative pathways for people whose needs it could not meet.
  • The service was well led. Governance processes had been embedded and they ensured that its procedures ran smoothly.

However:

  • We found one risk assessment where the section on blood borne viruses had not been completed. We found one risk assessment that did not have a full assessment of previous alcohol and substance misuse.
Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 20 November 2019

We rated safe as GOOD because:

  • The client environment was safe, clean, well equipped and well furnished.

  • Staff completed regular checks of equipment and the environment. Appropriate maintenance records were in place.

  • The service had enough staff, who knew the clients and received basic training in substance misuse and rehabilitation to keep them safe from avoidable harm.

  • Staff screened clients before admission and only admitted them for rehabilitation if it was safe to do so.

  • Staff assessed and managed risks to clients, themselves and the environment well.

  • Staff understood how to protect clients from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse, and they knew how to apply it.

  • Staff had easy access to clinical information and maintained good quality clinical records.

  • Staff recognised incidents and reported them appropriately. Managers reviewed incidents and shared lessons learned with staff. When things went wrong, staff apologised and gave clients honest information and suitable support.

However;

  • We found one risk assessment where the section on blood borne viruses had not been completed. We found one risk assessment that did not have a full assessment of previous alcohol and substance misuse.

Effective

Good

Updated 20 November 2019

We rated effective as GOOD because:

  • Staff completed assessments with clients on admission to the service. They worked with clients to develop individual recovery plans and updated them as needed. Recovery plans reflected the assessed needs, were personalised, holistic and recovery-oriented.

  • Staff provided a range of care and treatment interventions suitable for the client group and consistent with national guidance on best practice. Clients had access to a flexible rehabilitation programme incorporating different psychosocial approaches as well as individual counselling.

  • Staff ensured that clients had good access to physical healthcare and supported clients to live healthier lives. There was a dedicated physical healthcare worker in place.

  • Managers made sure that staff had the range of skills needed to provide high quality care. They supported staff with appraisals, supervision and opportunities to update and further develop their skills. Managers provided an induction programme for new staff.

  • Staff worked together as a team to benefit clients. They supported each other to make sure clients had no gaps in their care. The team had effective working relationships with other relevant teams within the organisation and with relevant services outside the organisation.

  • Staff supported clients to make decisions on their care for themselves. They understood the provider’s policy on the Mental Capacity Act 2015 and knew what to do if a client’s capacity to make decisions about their care and treatment might be impaired.

Caring

Good

Updated 20 November 2019

We rated caring as GOOD because

  • Staff treated clients with compassion and kindness. They respected clients’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of clients and supported clients to understand and manage their care and treatment.

  • Staff involved clients in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. They ensured that clients had easy access to additional support.

  • Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

Responsive

Good

Updated 20 November 2019

We rated responsive as GOOD because:

  • The service was easy to access. Staff planned and managed discharge well. The service had admissions criteria in place and these were adhered too.

  • The design, layout, and furnishings of the ward supported clients’ treatment. Staff managed privacy and dignity within shared dormitories appropriately. There was access to outside space.

  • The service met the needs of all clients, including those with a protected characteristic or with communication support needs.

  • The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the results, and shared these with the whole team.

Well-led

Good

Updated 20 November 2019

We rated well-led as GOOD because:

  • Managers had supported staff following our last inspection. Staff we spoke with told us managers had been approachable, honest and communicated well. Managers had developed an action plan following our last inspection which had been fully implemented

  • Managers had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their role. Managers had access to leadership and management training.

  • Staff knew and understood the provider’s vision and values and how they were applied in the work of their team.

  • Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They reported that the provider promoted equality and diversity in its day-to-day work and in providing opportunities for career progression. They felt able to raise concerns without fear of retribution.

  • Our findings from the other key questions demonstrated that governance processes operated effectively and that performance and risk were managed well.

Checks on specific services

Substance misuse services

Inadequate

Updated 12 July 2019

Residential substance misuse services

Good

Updated 20 November 2019

Start here...