Abbington House

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 means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. This is the first inspection for this newly registered service.

This key question has been rated as requires improvement because recovery plans were not always person centred. They did not always include client views and we did not see evidence that clients were offered a copy of their recovery plan. We did not always see evidence that other professionals were included in discharge planning.

However, the provider was holding community meetings for clients to provide feedback about their treatment. Staff made sure that clients had access to a variety of groups and activities to support their treatment. There was information available to clients on how to make a complaint or give complements and a suggestion box was also available.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Recovery plans did not always reflect person centred care. Recovery plans did not always have client views and there was no evidence that a copy of the plan was offered to the client. However, all client care notes that we reviewed had a recovery plan and most reviews were in date. All clients we spoke with were pleased with the care and treatment they had been receiving.

The provider was holding weekly community meetings, where clients had the opportunity to discuss their care. The community meeting minutes did not have a section for discussing actions from the last meeting. It was unclear if issues raised were being addressed by the provider.

Staff supported clients to maintain contact with their families while in treatment. Managers told us that therapists provided family therapy with the client and family if required.

Staff made sure that clients had access to groups and activities to support their recovery.

Not all staff had completed training in General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). GDPR is a legal framework that sets guidelines for the collection and processing of personal information from individuals who live in and outside of the European Union (EU).

The providers admission criteria stated that clients should have a basic comprehension of verbal and written English and therefore information was not available in other languages.

Staff told us that clients were given discharge packs when leaving the service, which included detail of their aftercare programme, information on mutual aid groups and harm reduction. Discharge packs also included details for blood screening post discharge.

The service had a complaints process in place. Since May 2024, the service had 5 complaints logged. A theme identified in complaints was clients wanting a refund due to early departure from the service. Lessons learned were identified from complaints made by clients and their families. For example, a client had requested a refund due to restriction on being able to watch the television in the community room. A community group was then introduced to allow clients to raise concerns. Client feedback on planned discharge from Abbington House was positive and commended staff for their care and support.

Staff made sure that patients were given information on how to complain or give complements. There was a complaints leaflet, explaining the steps to take if a client wanted to make a complaint. There was also a suggestion box available to clients to share their concerns.

The service did not have a nurse on site for medical emergencies. However, staff were aware of procedures and told us that an ambulance would be called in an emergency.

Staff made sure that clients had access to aftercare once they had completed treatment. Staff told us there was no time limit to aftercare support for clients.

Some staff had not completed mandatory training in equality, diversity and inclusion. However, there were weekly community meetings for clients to provide feedback. There was a comment box that was checked weekly and promoted a culture in which people using the service felt empowered to give their views.

We did not always see evidence that other professionals were contacted and that information was shared on discharge from Abbington House. We did not see information sharing on discharge with the clients GP or other professionals involved in treatment. Information sharing with other services ensures that support is available for clients on discharge from treatment and reduces risk.

However, staff told us the discharge process was to discuss leaving arrangements. This included speaking to their next of kin and giving a leaving pack with details of aftercare support and harm reduction information. Staff told us there was no time limit on aftercare support from Abbington House.