Blossom Street - York Drug and Alcohol Service

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

Good: This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

At our last assessment we rated caring as outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. 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, treatment or condition. Staff actively sought clients’ feedback on the quality of care provided.

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.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Clients we spoke with were positive about the staff and told us they felt that staff respected them. One client told us, “The staff seem genuinely interested in my wellbeing, they give me lots of insight and make suggestions to help me in other aspects of my life.”

During our assessment we spoke with 17 members of staff, the registered manager and the project manager. They told us all clients were treated as individuals, empowered and supported to manage their treatment and recovery. Staff understood the individual needs of clients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with clients showed that they were discreet, respectful and responsive and provided clients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it.

Staff directed clients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services. We received feedback from 4 external partners who told us they had positive working relationships with the service, and they supported referrals to employment services, abstinence-based programs and the mutual aid community.

Staff told us they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards clients without fear of the consequences.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, goals, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The service was accessible for all and enabled access to the premises for disabled people. Staff met clients’ specific communication or neurodiverse needs, for example by seeing clients in the garden at the service. The service also had access to interpreters to remove any language barriers. Staff ensured recovery plans included any equality and diversity information pertaining to the client and how they wanted to be treated.

Staff ensured that clients could obtain information on treatments, local services, their rights and how to complain. However, we noticed that this information was not visible in the waiting area and asked the service to ensure this was put back up following the service being redecorated.

Clients we spoke with told us that the service would try to accommodate their needs. If they had a pet, then staff would see them in the garden or if the service was not accessible then alternative arrangements could be made.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff offered clients alternative treatment options if they were unable to comply with specific treatment requirements e.g. buprenorphine as an alternative to methadone.

Staff signposted clients to support services within the community such as mutual aid groups and services offering psychosocial intervention strategies. Staff supported clients to access activities and the local community to promote and support their independence, health and wellbeing and to maintain relationships and networks that were important to them.

Staff supported and enabled clients to have choice and control over their own care and to make decisions about their care, treatment and wellbeing.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

The clients we spoke with said staff supported them in times of distress and went above and beyond in their role. We observed 2 assessments where the members of staff collaborated with clients holistically in developing their treatment plan, whilst also identifying support for any physical or mental health concerns and managing risks to, or posed by, clients. Staff worked with clients to develop crisis plans and relapse prevention strategies.

Staff encouraged clients to take naloxone home with them to mitigate the risk of death from overdosing on opiate drugs. This was also included as one of the prompts on the needle exchange proforma when seeing clients for this service.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

The staff we spoke with felt respected, supported and valued. They spoke positively about the service, leaders and managers.

However, staff did speak to us about the low morale within the service due to staffing pressures, although they told us that the team were supportive of each other. Staff told us they felt confident to raise concerns with any of the managers and told us they took things seriously.

All 17 staff we spoke with were especially proud of their team and several staff spoke to us about the benefits of working for the new provider.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service. Some of the staffing shortages were due to sickness absence, but absence levels were similar to those of other services delivered by this provider.

The provider recognised staff success within the service and a staff member told us “My manager will always email to say thank you.”

Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported.

Staff followed clear personal safety protocols, including for lone working.