Sheffield Drug and Alcohol Service Also known as Likewise Sheffield

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 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.

The service collaborated well with external partners, and clients when planning and delivering care, treatment, and future support. Staff completed the appropriate assessments and demonstrated a person-centred approach which ensured they responded quickly and effectively to the needs of clients. Accurate information was readily available, and given to clients and their families when needed, or requested. Training and processes enabled the service to identify possible bias, discrimination and barriers to treatment, and how to act on this to support clients appropriately. Clients' families, and people who knew them well were encouraged and supported to be involved in all aspects of their care and treatment.

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 a good standard. 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.

Staff used a person – centred approach to support the clients. They listened to clients and understood their individual need and preferences. Feedback from clients confirmed that care was person – centred and individualised and they felt that staff were understanding of their needs.
We observed client and staff interactions throughout the inspection and saw staff empowering the clients to make decisions about their care, listening to their concerns and supporting them with their recovery plans and treatment at a pace that suited them.
Staff described being proactive in responding to client’s needs and each shift had an allocated reception staff member to manage challenges or support clients who were in crisis. We observed a new client who received a same day assessment and script with a person-centred plan for treatment.

The management team put people at the heart of the service and client’s goals, wishes and
aspirations drove service delivery. Feedback from clients and external services confirmed care was person-centred and unique to each client. Staff and clients gave examples of how they based client care around individual needs and preferences. This included arranging home visits for clients who were unable to attend the service.
Care records showed that staff sought feedback from clients about what their goals were, and how they could achieve them.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service had an exceptional 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.

Managers planned and organised services, so they met the changing needs of the local
population. Staff advised us of the diverse health and cultural needs of the local community,
including clients of different ethnic origins and cultures, women with health needs and rough sleepers.

Clients were supported by consistent staff teams who knew them well, including the
HOPE team (Health, Outreach, Prevention, Education). This treatment pathway was introduced to better support people at higher risk, who did not have recovery as a goal and whose substance use, health needs and lifestyles made engagement with traditional models difficult. This was an ‘open access’ model instead of the reliance of scheduled appointments with the aim of reducing missed appointments, leading to disengagement, repeated restarts in treatment and increased risk.

The service, where appropriate supported clients to access education and work opportunities through the service’s Individual Placement and Support service (IPS). This service is an evidenced-based employment support model. This is designed to help individuals secure and sustain paid employment.

Likewise Sheffield IPS has been one of the highest performing IPS services, nationally, for first job outcomes since its inception.

Likewise launched its ‘Ambassadors Programme’ as a structured 12-month learning and work-placement pathway for people who had completed treatment and were progressing in their recovery from drug and/or alcohol use. The programme recognised that recovery is not simply about ending substance use; it is also about rebuilding confidence, developing purpose and creating opportunities for a fulfilling life. 
Participants combined practical work experience with education and skills development, preparing them to become peer mentors, volunteers, recovery leaders or paid employees within the drug and alcohol sector. Their lived experience was recognised as a valuable strength, enabling them to inspire hope, connect authentically with others and contribute directly to the development and delivery of recovery support across Sheffield.

The programme strengthened Sheffield’s visible recovery community while ensuring that people with lived experience were not only consulted but were supported to become an active part of the workforce of local recovery services. The programme responded to the wider needs people often experience after treatment, including limited work experience, low confidence and barriers to education or employment. It offered flexible routes into peer mentoring, volunteering, further learning or paid work according to individual aspirations.

Recognising that many women experienced stigma and difficulty engaging with traditional services, along with Sheffield Working Women Opportunities Project (SWWOP), the service launched ‘Buvigals’, a project designed to improve treatment access for female sex workers with opioid dependency.

At the centre of the project was long-acting injectable buprenorphine—a medication administered weekly or monthly to reduce opioid cravings and withdrawal symptoms. This removed the need to collect medication every day and could provide greater stability for women whose lives may be particularly complex. Women could also access coordinated support in one place, including:

•    Sexual health screening, contraception, advice and treatment. 
•    Respiratory screening and support for conditions such as COPD. 
•    Mental health and emotional wellbeing support. 
•    On-site GP appointments and access to primary healthcare.

The service operated one late night per week. Every Thursday the service remained open until 7pm.

The service supported clients to maintain relationships with their families and carers. 
through Self-Management and Recovery Training (SMART) which provided
relatives with the tools to effectively support their loved one. The service also held a weekly ‘Concerned Others’ meeting. Clients told us that that their family members were considered by staff, and they were asked who they would like to be involved in their care when appropriate.

Likewise Sheffield recognised that continuity of care from prison to community treatment for those with substance misuse issues was challenging on a national scale, with increased risk of relapse, overdose, disengagement from treatment, homelessness, reoffending and drug related death. National Drug Treatment Monitoring Service (NDTMS) data reported continuity of care between prison and community treatment of 55% nationally for the previous 12 months period. Likewise Sheffield were 16% above the national average with 71% and 9% above the regional average of 62%.

The service had strengthened its prison-to-community pathway by purchasing two pool cars to support individuals on release from prison and improve engagement with treatment. 
Staff based within local prisons completed assessments, provided advice and reassurance, and began building therapeutic relationships prior to release. Joint appointments with probation services reduced duplication, improved information sharing, strengthened risk management and supported coordinated care planning.

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 Care Quality Commission and safeguarding referrals to the local authority.

Staff ensured that clients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’
rights, how to complain and so on. The information provided was in a form accessible to the
client group. There were easy read versions of leaflets and information provided to clients. Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by clients. Clients also had access to interpreters and signers when needed and the service also had a Farsi spoken narcotics anonymous group.

Staff ensured carers, families, probation and commissioners were regularly updated about the client’s progress where applicable and appropriate to do so.
 

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They 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. The service had a culture of open and honest discussions, and any issues were dealt with immediately.

Information regarding how to complain was available throughout the building and clients told us that they would feel confident that if a complaint was raised, it would be handled swiftly and effectively by the service.

The service had a robust complaints policy that included individual roles in the management of complaints, timescales for completion, how to log and record complaints, the appeal process, feedback and continuous service improvement.

Staff told us that the complaints policy was easily accessible and that they would know how to handle complaints appropriately.

Staff in the service told us they actively encouraged clients to submit a complaint if they had
concerns about their care. There had been 20 complaints within the 12 months prior to
inspection. 9 of these had been upheld. 5 complaints were partially upheld and 5 were not upheld and 1 complaint was suspended due to lack of contact.

The service had received 9 compliments from clients, family and carers, partner
organisations and other external agencies from January 2026 to March 2026. Staff and managers
told us they actively sought both positive and negative feedback from clients through a range of forums such as an annual service user survey, monthly community groups, link to a
compliments and complaints page on the service’s website as well as QR codes and feedback boxes throughout the service’s locations. There were feedback forms in communal areas and managers told us this was an important focus. Managers used social media to seek feedback and asked clients for their feedback during group sessions.

Staff received feedback on the outcomes of investigations of complaints during flash meetings
and team meetings. Managers and leaders reviewed complaints during information governance meetings and acted on the findings.

Some former clients had since become staff members and were actively involved in making
decisions about the service. People who used the service were active partners in their care and staff empowered them to have a voice.

There was a ‘Concerned Others’ service which provided emotional and practical support to
adults who were impacted by their friend or relative’s substance use. This was a trauma
informed service, which was accessible to all, regardless of the treatment status of the person using substances. The service was delivered by staff and volunteers, and offered one to one support sessions, and peer support groups where people could share their experiences and explore concerns. The facilitators would then offer guidance, practical information, and signpost people to  access further support.
 

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure
that 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 including for clients who were sex workers, pregnant or had identified children’s safeguarding concerns. A senior staff member within the single point of contact team reviewed all new referrals to consider whether fast tracking was appropriate and escalated this to the appropriate team leader. For new referrals who were rough sleepers, a member of staff from the rough sleeper’s outreach team would visit them, normally within 24 hours of referral.

The provider worked with people to ensure key information about their care and support was communicated appropriately using easy read formats.

Managers monitored waiting times and made sure clients could access services when needed and received treatment within agreed timeframes and national targets.

When clients did have their appointments cancelled at the last minute, managers made sure
they were rearranged as soon as possible and within national targets and guidance.
Managers and staff started planning each client’s discharge as early as possible. Staff planned clients’ discharge carefully, particularly for those with complex mental health and social care needs.
 

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. Staff and leaders were innovative in how they listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Staff and leaders actively used this information to provide exceptionally tailored care, support and treatment in response to this

The service had been developed and designed to ensure people who received support had
access to services which matched their individual care needs. 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.

Both managers and staff spoke about reaching out to marginalised groups and told us there
were always projects and events in place to do so. They said that rather than expecting people to self-refer they actively sought people in the community who would benefit from treatment. Service managers had identified that Sheffield’s culturally diverse population was not reflected in people accessing treatment. In response, the service introduced a role called a ‘community connector’ to build trust and improve access to communities that were underrepresented.

This model of engaging underrepresented communities has been recognised as one of best practice by Waythrough and has been adopted within the organisation and has been extended to Sheffield’s Polish and Chinese communities. Its central principle is “Work alongside communities, at their pace, and enable them to lead the process”.

The service also held a daily breakfast club at Portland House, which was open to anybody regardless of whether they were receiving treatment from the provider.

The service had a number of working groups that addressed barriers to access for specific communities and those with protected characteristics such as a chemsex (the practice of using specific substances to enhance and prolong sexual activity) and LGBTQIA+ inclusion group.

Staff who identified from the LGBTQIA+ community provided a learning lunch where they provided education around the different pronouns and how to respectfully have conversations with each other and clients. One staff member provided information about the different flags that represented the different groups within LGBTQIA+.
There was also an established neurodiversity group that explored this area from both a staff and client perspective. For clients, the group looked at how the service could improve their approach when working with neurodiverse individuals. As a result of feedback, the service created a sensory room that was available for both staff and clients. The group had also developed training for staff on recognising neurodiversity and understanding key considerations when supporting neurodiverse individuals.

Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights. Training compliance at the time of inspection was 99%.

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

Staff supported 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 employment support services to prepare them for
discharge. Clients were supported by the Individual Placement Team regarding
employment and education. Clients were also informed and encouraged to become involved in peer support and voluntary roles within the service.