Change Grow Live Barnet

This means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

At the last inspection, the provider was required to ensure all clients received a medical or non-medical prescriber review annually. At this inspection, compliance had improved to 90%, supported by clear mitigation plans for missed reviews. These included holding prescriptions at the hub, enhanced communication with pharmacies, and scheduling follow-ups. Additional prescribing capacity had been introduced, and audits confirmed overdue reviews were tracked with actions taken to maintain safety. This demonstrated measurable progress since the last inspection.

People generally received care and treatment aligned with national guidance. Prescribing decisions were clearly documented and shared with GPs, and recovery plans reflected individual goals such as reducing alcohol use, reconnecting with family, or accessing housing support. Multidisciplinary meetings and prescriber forums provided structured oversight and supported consistency in clinical decision-making. Staff worked collaboratively with GPs, pharmacies, housing and criminal-justice partners, which helped maintain continuity of care. People were offered harm-reduction advice and opportunities to engage in recovery-focused activities such as allotments, creative sessions and recovery walks, which they told us helped reduce isolation and promote healthier lifestyles.

However, physical-health assessments were not consistently completed to the required standard. While most records included some physical health information, four of the ten records reviewed lacked key checks such as blood pressure, ECG or liver function tests. In addition, validated alcohol assessment tools such as AUDIT or SADQ were missing or incomplete in four records. Staff told us tool use varied depending on confidence and time pressures, and governance meeting notes confirmed inconsistent application of alcohol screening tools as an area for improvement. These gaps meant the service could not be assured that withdrawal risks and co-existing health conditions were consistently identified and managed.

Trauma-informed care training was recognised as a development priority; however, it had not yet been delivered. Staff told us they aimed to work in a trauma-informed way, but confidence and consistency in applying this approach varied.