Sheffield Drug and Alcohol Service Also known as Likewise Sheffield

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 is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated as good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

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, 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 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Client feedback about staff was overwhelmingly positive. All staff were compassionate and responsive when caring for clients. Staff took time to interact with clients and those close to them in a respectful and considerate way. Clients told us that staff were friendly and always there to help.

Staff understood and respected the individual needs of each client and showed understanding and a non-judgmental attitude when caring for or discussing clients.

One client told us, “Staff are very understanding” and another client said, “staff are fantastic and are always here to help”. 
Clients were signposted by staff to other services, or where staff were able to support directly, they did so, for example, liaising with housing support, social services, employment and education.

Clients described the service as a “lifesaver” and “non-judgemental”.

Clients told us staff went above and beyond to support them and that staff were very helpful and didn’t judge.

We observed staff and client interactions throughout the inspection, and these were all very
positive. We saw that staff were visible and accessible to clients and appeared to know the clients well.  We observed staff being very welcoming, proactive in showing clients genuine compassion and understanding.

We observed a group session and saw that the staff facilitator led the session in a very
welcoming, open and friendly manner. They allowed each client to share their views and
feelings and treated them with kindness, warmth and empathy.

All staff we spoke with were passionate and committed to delivering good care. Staff and
clients both fed back that they had built good therapeutic relationships which they said formed a key part of their recovery.

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards clients without fear of the consequences.

Staff followed policy to keep client care and treatment confidential. Care records were stored securely, and documents were password protected and managers had the ability to withdraw individual staff access to computer systems if deemed necessary. When clients disclosed personal information about themselves during group sessions, staff reminded everyone not to share this information with anyone else.

Staff recognised clients with mental health needs and ensured they received support from local mental health services. The client group was diverse. Clients told us that staff understood and respected their personal, cultural, social and religious needs.

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

The service treated people as individuals and made sure clients’ care, support and treatment needs and preferences were met.

Staff supported clients who became distressed and helped them maintain their privacy and
dignity. The service had a policy in place to manage violence and aggression.

The service made adjustments for disabled clients. Both buildings were
accessible and staff arranged for appointments to take place on the ground floor for clients with mobility issues. Lifts were also available for facilities upstairs. Home visits were facilitated by staff if a client couldn’t attend the service due to mobility issues. Staff were mindful of clients who were anxious about attending the service and provided examples of how they had met client’s needs such as telephone appointments.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, clients’
rights, and how to complain. There were a range of useful contact numbers on display for those entering the service. Clients confirmed they were offered information and signposted to external services on admission and reminded of this throughout their period of treatment.

The information provided was in a form accessible to the client group. There were easy read leaflets, and information provided in a variety of languages. Some clients had limited English and managers ensured that clients had easy access to interpreters and/or signers through designated services.

Care plans demonstrated people were actively involved in decision making and were
supported to make their own choices about their care. People were supported to maintain
networks that were important to them.
Staff considered client’s strengths, culture, background and any protected characteristics such as religion.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The service actively promoted clients’ independence, choice, and control over their care.
Clients were encouraged to participate in decision-making, including their personal backgrounds, social circumstances, and individual needs. This information was used to guide the care and treatment provided.

Staff supported clients to access activities and engage with the local community helping to promote their independence, health and overall wellbeing.

Clients told us that there was a wide range of activities and workshops available within the service alongside additional support such as mutual aid groups.

Staff also supported clients to maintain relationships with their friends and family. Clients reported that staff encouraged their loved ones to be involved in their recovery and care whenever this was appropriate and in accordance with clients wishes.

We observed that clients were given choice and control over their care and treatment.

Different treatments and testing options were discussed and explained to clients. This enabled clients to have the information they needed to make an informed decision about their care and treatment.
 

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service 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 were aware of, and dealt with any specific risks in relation to safeguarding, physical
health and mental health concerns. They worked collaboratively with relevant
external agencies such as the local authority safeguarding teams, local GP’s, housing, police
and ambulance services.
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 such as discussing clients at risk meetings, review of risk assessments and changes to medication pick-ups.
Staff offered harm minimisation advice at every opportunity and encouraged clients to take
home naloxone.
 

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service always cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and was exceptional at supporting and enabling staff to always deliver person-centred care.

The service cared strongly about, and promoted the wellbeing of, their staff and supported and enabled staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff we spoke with told us they felt respected, supported and valued. One staff member said: “This is an amazing place to work. There is no judgement, just support”.

Staff we spoke with said they felt proud to work for the service. One staff member told us, “It is a great service. I can’t fault it. Everything for clients is in one place”.

The service provided a ‘wellbeing network’, a place where staff could connect with wellbeing advocates and discover information to support both their own and colleagues’ wellbeing.

There were resources available on topics such as mental wellbeing, menopause, stress and
burnout, staying active and financial wellbeing. Every three months, the wellbeing network
organised a wellbeing campaign that addressed topics affecting wellbeing. Staff had access to a designated email address to the wellbeing network to offer suggestions.

The service provided access to an ‘Employment Assistance Programme (EAP)’ for both staff and volunteers. This offered financial support and advice, legal advice, support for managing
workplace and academic stress, parenting strategies and family support. This was a 24/7
service. The EAP also offered counselling.

Staff had access to an app that provided a range of health and wellbeing services such as health checks and bereavement support.

Managers ensured that staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service.

Managers allocated up to 2 hours each month for staff wellbeing, which allowed staff to carry out an activity of their choice that supported their individual wellbeing.

There was a strong focus on team morale, including informal peer support, shared problem solving and a culture where staff looked out for one another. Managers gave staff the
opportunity to take time out after incidents and recognised when staff needed this. As a response to staff’s request, a ‘quiet space’ had been provided by managers to allow quiet time and a space for reflection. The room was also adapted as a sensory room, equipped with dimmed, softer lighting.

The service provided regular, structured supervision that provided a safe space for staff to
debrief after incidents and discuss any emotional impact. This included access to specialist
advice from clinical colleagues, safeguarding, mental health, prescribing and senior
management.

Staff we spoke with all felt positive and proud about working for the provider and their team.

Managers were proactive in recognising staff success in a variety of ways. At each morning ‘flash meeting’ the final agenda item was ‘good news stories and thank you’.

Staff told us their work was regularly acknowledged by managers. Managers recognised the
success of staff at all staff meetings. The service recognised and celebrated the achievements of its volunteers and peer mentors through an annual ambassadors ceremony. This ceremony acknowledged individuals who had successfully progressed through treatment into volunteer or peer mentor roles.

Staff were celebrated during ‘worker of the week’ where staff nominated one another, including praise and outstanding practice and was shared on a notice board in staff area.

Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how this could be
supported. Annual appraisals included objectives which managers reviewed throughout the
year.