You are here

Scovell Street, Salford Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 October 2019

We rated Scovell Street, Salford as good because:

  • The service provided safe care. The premises where clients were seen were safe and clean. The service had enough staff. Staff assessed and managed risk well and followed good practice with respect to safeguarding.
  • 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.
  • Managers ensured that these staff received training, supervision and appraisal. Staff worked well together as a multidisciplinary team and with relevant services outside the organisation.
  • Staff treated clients with compassion, kindness and understood the individual needs of clients. They actively involved clients in decisions and care planning.
  • The service had clear referral criteria and pathways. Staff planned and managed discharge well and had alternative pathways for people whose needs it could not meet.
  • The service was well led, and the governance processes ensured that its procedures ran smoothly.

However:

  • The décor of the building was old and tired
  • Consideration of mental capacity was not always recorded as part of consent to treatment.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 October 2019

We rated safe as good because:

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

  • Staff screened clients before admission and only offered admitted them if it was safe to do so. They assessed and managed risks to clients and themselves well. They responded promptly to sudden deterioration in clients’ physical and mental health.

  • 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 it was easy for them to maintain high quality clinical records – whether paper-based or electronic.

  • Staff recognised incidents and reported them appropriately. Managers investigated incidents and shared lessons learned with the whole team and the wider service. When things went wrong, staff apologised and gave clients honest information and suitable support.

However:

The décor of the building was old and tired.

Effective

Good

Updated 9 October 2019

We rated effective as good because:

  • Staff completed assessments with clients on admission to the service. They worked with clients to develop individual care plans and updated them as needed. Care 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. They ensured that clients had good access to physical healthcare and supported clients to live healthier lives.

  • Staff used recognised rating scales to assess and record severity and outcomes. They also participated in clinical audit and quality improvement initiatives.

  • 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 had access to training and a supporting policy around the Mental Capacity Act. Staff we spoke to were aware of how to identify capacity concerns and arrange a capacity assessment.

    However;

  • Consideration of mental capacity was not always recorded as part of consent to treatment.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 October 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 9 October 2019

We rated responsive as good because:

  • The service had clear admission criteria. There was a clear referral and admission process. Staff planned and managed discharge well. The service had alternative care pathways and referral systems for people whose needs it could not meet.

  • Clients had access to a range of facilities within the premises and the community to promote their recovery. Clients were supported to maintain relationships with loved ones. Staff supported clients to access and engage with the wider community.

  • There was a complaints policy and process. Clients told us that they would be confident in raising any concerns.

Well-led

Good

Updated 9 October 2019

We rated well-led as good because:

  • Leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles, had a good understanding of the services they managed, and were visible in the service and approachable for clients and staff.

  • 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 at service level and that performance and risk were managed well.

  • Teams had access to the information they needed to provide safe and effective care and used that information to good effect.

  • Staff collected and analysed data about outcomes and performance.

Checks on specific services

Residential substance misuse services

Good

Updated 9 October 2019

Start here...