Blossom Street - York Drug and Alcohol Service

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.

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

Good: This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 result.

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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff gave us examples of how they based client care around individual needs and preferences. For example, a member of staff told us about how they developed a visual tool for monitoring alcohol intake to support a client from the travelling community and support they had given to clients to access phone applications for practical neurodiversity support. These examples also showed how the staff supported and empowered clients to make their own decisions about their care and treatment.

Staff developed care plans with clients, and we were provided with good examples from both staff and clients about how goals were developed to identify the client’s strengths and develop their recovery capital. However, this was not always captured clearly within the care records.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service had developed partnerships with other services to help meet the needs of clients, supported people to have access to education and work opportunities and collaborated with other providers to offer joined up care in terms of psychosocial interventions. Staff supported clients to maintain contact with people and things important to them.

The service had undertaken work to understand local demographics and the needs of the local community. The service participated in meetings to support York’s vision to become an inclusive recovery city.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff ensured that clients could obtain information on treatments and local services, and clients we spoke with gave examples of how the service shared information on local services. Staff ensured clients knew how to complain, pulse survey forms were available in the reception areas, and we saw evidence that complaints were taken seriously.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of client records.

Staff made notifications to all relevant external bodies as needed.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service recorded 5 complaints in the last 12 months, 3 were upheld and 2 were not upheld. No complaints had been referred to the Ombudsman in last 12 months. The service had not identified any themes or trends from investigating the complaints.

Clients knew how to complain or raise concerns and in the 5 complaints reviewed all clients had received feedback. In one case a client rescinded their complaint based on the immediate response from the service. Staff also received feedback on the outcome of investigation of complaints from clients and acted on the findings.

Staff enabled clients to give feedback on the service they received. The service conducted an ongoing pulse survey, and the report showed a response from 55 participants over the last 12 months. 74% of these respondents were satisfied with the service provided.

The service also enabled commissioners and other community groups to give feedback about the service and input into service delivery.

We spoke with the volunteer coordinator and service user involvement lead who explained that they created role profiles and recruited into the roles. The lead undertook the initial training for all volunteers and completed supervisions and appraisals.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service ensured the needs of clients with mobility issues were met. The service had flexible opening times to support access from those in full-time employment and staff made reasonable adjustments for clients whenever possible.

Staff supported clients to access support from other services such as mutual aid groups. They planned and managed discharge well and had alternative pathways for people whose needs could not be met.

At the time of our onsite inspection there had been a gap in medical cover due to sickness, however the service had recently employed an agency worker to help with this, and the service could access support from mental health services.

The service had assessed the needs of the local community to ensure they were able to treat the community they served. The service had recruited a worker to meet with clients and in the community and work with GPs to educate and improve referrals to the service.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support, and treatment in response to this.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views.

The service analysed demographic information and took action to address any inequitable outcomes. This included addressing barriers to access for specific communities and those with protected characteristics.

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 were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights and compliance rates were 100%.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported by planning for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of treatment.

Staff supported clients to make decisions about their care and treatment and their future and clients we spoke with confirmed this was the case. Staff supported clients to create and review crisis and relapse plans and had a clear policy regarding engagement and action to take if there was an unplanned exit or discharge from the service.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies participated in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs, such as probation, social services, prison liaison, hostels and the women’s centre.

The service had undergone a retendering process in 2024 and moved to the provider Change, Grow Live and commenced the new contract in July 2024. Feedback from managers and staff was that there had been a marked improvement since changing providers, staff felt there was better structure, oversight and clear policy and procedures.