Live Well East

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.

Staff managed access and discharge from the service well. The design, layout, and furnishings of the service's premises supported clients' treatment, privacy and dignity. Staff supported clients with activities outside the service, such as work, education and family relationships. The service met the needs of all clients — including those with a protected characteristic. Staff helped clients with communication, advocacy and cultural and spiritual support. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the results.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff based client care around individual needs and preferences. Staff prescribed sugar-free methadone as an alternative to the regular type for clients with diabetes.

We saw evidence in care records that decisions around care and treatment were made in co-creation with the client and their carers where appropriate. We saw evidence that staff discussed discharge with clients when they were near the end of their recovery journey.

Staff supported clients to maintain contact with their families, friends and carers. We observed a multidisciplinary team meeting for 1 client due to attend the service that day. Staff had planned to discuss with the client bringing their friend along with them for support. We also saw evidence of family and carer involvement in clients’ care records.

Staff supported clients to access their chosen place of worship within the community by liaising with pharmacy services to change medicine collection times to enable clients of the Muslim faith to observe prayer times.

Staff ensured clients had access to interpreters, signers and advocates when required and could produce information in a variety of formats such as easy-read or other languages.

We saw evidence in care records that staff offered clients a copy of their recovery plans.

There was 1 complaint about the service in the last 12 months which related to the language used by a staff member. The complaint was upheld and dealt with appropriately.

All but one of the 16 clients we spoke with knew how to complain or raise concerns. However, a ‘how to complaint’ poster was displayed in the reception area.

Staff protected clients who raised concerns or complaints from discrimination and harassment. All investigations into complaints were undertaken confidentially. If complaints could not be resolved informally, they went through the provider’s complaints process and were investigated by either the service manager, registered manager or somebody independent to the service within the wider organisation. If the complaint was against a member of staff working directly with the client and was contentious, a different staff member was allocated to the client pending the outcome of the investigation.

Any learning from complaints was shared with staff via team compliance meetings or, if the learning need was urgent, via daily flash meetings.

Staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately; received feedback on the outcome of investigation of complaints and acted on the findings.

Staff ensured the needs of clients with mobility issues were met. At the time of our assessment, the lift in the service premises was out of action. However, there were sufficient numbers of rooms on the ground floor where clients with mobility issues could be seen, or staff could arrange to meet clients at their home or preferred location. All areas that clients were seen in were wheelchair accessible.

Administrators used an induction loop to communicate with people who were hard of hearing and wore compatible hearing aids.

There was adequate medical cover within the service. There were staff trained in first aid and basic life support who could attend to physical health emergencies.

There were also two specialist doctors who provided prescribing clinics for clients with complex health needs. The service premises was within a reasonable travelling distance to the local acute hospital. Nurses within the service were able to provide wound care when required for physical injuries.

Staff ensured clients had access to post-discharge care such as mutual aid groups and support and treatment from primary healthcare and mental health services.

We saw evidence in care records that staff planned for clients' discharge, including good liaison with social workers, primary medical services, criminal justice teams and mental health services.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. Clients had access to a range of ways to submit feedback such as feedback forms/boxes and surveys and we saw evidence in care records that clients’ views about how they were treated were sought and implemented when appropriate.

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.

Staff received mandatory training in equality and diversity. At the time of our assessment, 96% of staff had completed this training.

The provider kept a record of clients who had successfully completed their care and treatment and sent us data for the last 13 months. At the time of our assessment, the average completion figures for this period were:

• 2% of clients using a combination of opiates and crack cocaine
• 2% of clients using opiates
• 26% of clients using non-opiates
• 21% of clients using a combination of non-opiates and crack cocaine
• 26% of clients with alcohol addictions and,
• 25% of clients using non-opiates and with an alcohol addiction.

Staff supported clients to make decisions about their care and treatment and their future. The registered manager told us there were clients with life-limiting conditions who had do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation orders in place.

We saw evidence in care records that staff created personalised care plans to account for clients’ needs, wishes and feelings.

Staff ensure all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs. We saw evidence in care records that healthcare professionals from mental health services, primary care services, housing services and debt-management companies were involved in supporting clients’ health and social needs.