Live Well West

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good.

Leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles. Staff knew and understood the provider's vision and values and how they applied to the work of their team.Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Governance processes operated effectively. Performance and risk were managed well. Teams had access to the information they needed to provide safe and effective care. Staff collected and analysed data about outcomes and performance. They used this to identify improvements.

This service scored 79 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff knew and understood the provider’s vision and values and how they were applied in the work of their team. The provider’s senior leadership team had successfully communicated the vision and values to the frontline staff in this service.

Staff had the opportunity to contribute to discussions about the strategy for their service during team meetings, daily huddles and during supervision and appraisal sessions.

Leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles. For example, the registered manager had managed care coordination teams for 7 years and had 24 years’ experience working in drug and alcohol addiction services and mental health services.

Leaders had a good understanding of the services they managed. They could explain clearly how the teams were working to provide high quality care.

Leaders were visible in the service and approachable for clients and staff. Staff spoke highly of senior managers within the service and wider provider and felt supported.

Leadership development opportunities were available, including opportunities for staff not currently in management roles. Staff were undertaking degrees in leadership and management and some staff members had been placed on temporary promotion for development and experience of managerial-based tasks.

Clients and carers had opportunities to give feedback on the service they received in a manner that reflected their individual needs. These included comments cards/boxes, the provider’s complaints process or face to face when attending their appointments.

The provider had a whistleblowing policy in place which was accessible to staff within the service. There was a freedom to speak up process within the service.

Managers and staff had access to the feedback from clients, carers and staff and used it to make improvements.

Clients and carers were involved in decision-making about changes to the service. Staff had enabled clients to become involved in developing the service’s new ‘behaviour change’ programme, including raising ideas for group session activities.

Clients and staff could meet with members of the provider’s senior leadership team to give feedback.

There were equality and diversity champions within the service.

Staff were able to apply to work flexibly to account for personal circumstances such as caring responsibilities and health issues. Managers had agreed to staff members working hours which fitted in with their personal circumstances.

Managers put reasonable adjustments in place for staff members to help them carry out their role. For example, staff had been provided with adapted chairs and equipment to account for their disabilities or other medical conditions.

The provider undertook equality monitoring of staff within the service to ensure it was diverse in its make-up and representative of the client group.

Governance systems, policies, procedures and protocols were effective and reflected best practice. There were sufficient numbers of skilled and experienced staff to meet clients’ needs. Staff could seek support and guidance about the use of the Mental Capacity Act. The service premises were clean and tidy and stocked with emergency drugs. Clients told us staff were kind, caring and treated them well.

There was a clear framework of what must be discussed at a team, service or directorate level in team meetings to ensure that essential information, such as learning from incidents and complaints, was shared and discussed.

Staff had implemented recommendations from reviews of deaths, incidents, complaints and safeguarding alerts at the service level.

Staff undertook or participated in local clinical audits. The audits were sufficient to provide assurance and staff acted on the results when needed.

Staff understood the arrangements for working with other teams, both within the provider and external, to meet the needs of clients.

The provider has a risk register which staff were able to access. Staff could submit issues that they felt should be included on the risk register. At the time of our onsite assessment, issues on the risk register included regulatory compliance, health and safety in relation to prescription security and additional resource needed to support generation.

The service had plans for emergency situations. Business continuity plans were in place which included actions for staff to take in the event of adverse weather conditions, pandemics, loss of computer systems or premises and fire and bomb scares.

Leaders within the service engaged with external stakeholders. The criminal justice team engaged with prison services and custody staff. The young people team attended meetings at schools,multiagency children’s hub meetings and contributed to the transformation pathway of the local trust in which staff identified clients in need of support to address their addictions.

Clients and staff could meet with members of the provider’s senior leadership team to give feedback.

Staff were given the time and support to consider opportunities for improvements and innovation during team huddles, team meetings and during appraisal and supervision sessions and this led to changes.

Staff had opportunities to participate in research. This included studies around barriers to accessing treatment for substance misuse. The service facilitated interviews with staff and clients, and with other local services. Staff participated in a study around assessing the prevalence of alcohol related falls, contributing anonymised data and facilitating questionnaires. Staff also participated in a national stigma survey.

There was a trauma specialist within the service who was working on a standardised assessment and accreditation scheme.

Innovations were taking place in the service. There was a hard-to-reach vulnerable women's clinic on a night which offered support to women who sell sex. Because they worked nights, regular 9am to 5pm services were not accessible to them. The service had liaised with a specialist support organisation to devise a support package for these women. There was a café area at the Live Well West site where women could drop in on their working night. The service offered dual diagnosis, smoking cessation support, sexual health and support with infectious diseases. Staff ensured clients had naloxone, lip balm and lubrication. Naloxone is a medicine that rapidly reverses an opioid overdose, potentially saving the person's life. Sexual health support included the provision of contraception such as coils and smear tests. Staff provided self-testing kits so the clients could self-screen.

Staff used quality improvement methods and knew how to apply them. There was a compliance lead within the team who fed back on progress on key performance indicators, audits, client feedback, compliance with supervision, appraisals, mandatory training and the quality of care records. Performance information was fed up to the clinical governance board for oversight. Staff and managers within the service conducted clinical audits and used the findings from them to improve service quality.