Camden Community Drug Treatment 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 this inspection, we have rated it as good.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

Staff engaged with clients and their families (where appropriate) to develop support plans that met their needs and ensured they had the relevant information needed to make informed decisions about their care.

In the records we reviewed we saw clients’ voice. For example, highlighting what they wanted from their treatment.

Clients reported that they felt supported, informed and involved with their treatment decisions and care planning. All clients and carers we spoke with reported they had discussed their plan of care with the team and were happy with it.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people in their local community and worked to provide joined-up, flexible care that supported choice and continuity. Leaders told us that the drug use in the area was quite varied. For example, that there was a high heroin use and chemsex behaviours. This had increased the use of benzodiazepines, and the service had engaged with local GPs about this.

Staff were aware of a range of external services that may be useful to clients and directed and supported them to access those services if they needed help. For example, housing, and local employment support. The service had a homeless support worker who liaised with hostels in the local area.

Staff understood and respected the individual needs of each client. Staff showed a good understanding of clients’ needs, social circumstances and goals. During keywork sessions staff discussed clients’ personal preferences and goals. All clients we spoke to stated that their needs were being met.

Staff planned clients’ discharge and worked with external agencies to ensure that this went well. There was a multidisciplinary meeting with community services to review discharges from the service.

Staff provided clients, their family members and carers with access to appropriate emotional support.

The service provided information in staff and client areas about a range of support or services relevant to staff and/or clients.

The service had posters and information for staff and clients about how to seek help for wellbeing and mental health support.

The service provided up to date information about important areas in formats that were tailored to the client group, and individual needs, where necessary. This included leaflets people could take home as well as posters on service walls. Staff also shared information verbally in sessions with clients.

The service had information leaflets available in languages spoken by the clients and local community. Managers made sure staff and clients could get help from interpreters or signers when needed.

The service displayed suggestion leaflets in the reception area as a way for clients or carers and family to provide feedback on the service they had received. The service also displayed what they had learnt from suggestions and what they had done about it as a form of feedback. For example, service users feeling uncomfortable and bullied during a group session. This led to the development of a standard group agreement surrounding expectations of conduct.

Staff also enabled clients to give feedback on the service they received by completing formal feedback surveys. The service last staff survey was completed in March 2026, and the service was currently awaiting the results.

The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the results. Managers shared lessons with the whole team and the wider service, where needed. Complaint investigations and outcomes were discussed at monthly integrated governance team meetings.

Most clients and carers knew how to complain or raise concerns if they needed to. The service also had complaints and compliment leaflets accessible to clients, which advised them how to make a complaint. These were displayed in the reception area.

Staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately. Staff dealt with informal complaints immediately if a client or their representative approached them. If necessary, staff escalated the complaint to the team managers or service manager.

The service had received 29 formal complaints in the 12 months prior to inspection. Of these, 13 were upheld by the service following investigation, 6 partially upheld and 1 was not upheld. Nine were still being investigated at the time of the inspection. These were related to aspects of communication in individual cases and medicine errors. We reviewed 3 complaints and found the responses to be appropriate, with evidence of meeting with the client where appropriate.

The service received 119 compliments between June 2025 and May 2026. Comments from clients included how supportive staff had been, how positive the groups were and that the service was a life saver.

The service referral and acceptance criteria was clear.

The building was accessible for people who had a physical disability.

At the time of the inspection the service had no waiting time for an assessment. Clients who needed urgent referrals were able to receive same day access to the service. There were no waiting lists at the time of our inspection.

The service had pathways and teams who worked specifically with clients who were recently discharged from prison or who were homeless or living in a hostel. These staff worked in the community or on site at other organisations where they were embedded with teams at these sites or more able to engage with clients here.

Late and evening clinics were available for clients who needed these.

The service discharged people when specialist treatment was no longer necessary and worked with clients to plan discharge.

Managers told us that the service was currently actively working to reach more people in the community who needed their services with mental health needs. The service was working with domestic abuse charities.

The service was aware of the importance of equity in experience and outcomes and worked with partners to aim for this. The service tailored the care, support and treatment in response to this.

The service provided several initiatives to engage groups who may find it hard to access services. For example, the women’s only evening once a week developed to remove barriers for women accessing treatment. During this time, women were able to access assessment and triage, counselling, nursing interventions, one to one support, acupuncture or meditation, prescribing appointments, domestic violence support and monthly shiatsu massage sessions.

The service ensured that when a client was coming towards the end of their care, appropriate groups and signposting were completed. Staff completed work with the client surrounding confidence building and explanation of the next steps in their recovery.

The service worked with people and their families around preparation for discharge. Clients we spoke to stated that they were able to make decisions about this.

Clients we spoke with who had recently left the service said that the aftercare the service offered was exceptional.