You are here

Narconon United Kingdom Good

Reports


Inspection carried out on 15 August 2016

During a routine inspection

We inspected Narconon on the 15 August 2016 and the inspection was unannounced. Narconon is registered to provide accommodation with personal care for up to 16 students (adult service users). The purpose of the service is to provide a non-medical detoxification and rehabilitation programme for students who are addicted to alcohol or drugs. Students withdraw from drugs and then take part in a programme of modules with the intention of self-learning. The provider had developed an alternative non-medical/medicated intervention, rehabilitation and care programme for a variety of legal and illegal drugs and alcohol withdrawal.

It should be noted that the only part of the service provided at this location which is registered and regulated by the Care Quality Commission is for ‘accommodation with personal care’ we do not regulate the rehabilitation programme provided or judge their effectiveness.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.

At the last inspection in December 2015, we asked the provider to make improvements in relation to the safe recruitment of staff and the organisation of contemporaneous records. The provider sent us an action plan stating they would have addressed all of these concerns by February 2016. At this inspection we found the provider was meeting these regulations and had acted upon the recommendations made.

Before commencing the programme, staff completed pre-admission assessments in partnership with the students to ensure they could safely support the student throughout the programme. Information obtained from the pre-admission assessment formed the basis of the student’s care plan. However, care plans and risk assessments did not consistently reflect the steps required to mitigate potential risks or how to safely manage student’s mental health needs during withdrawal. Where students may have experienced fluctuating capacity during the withdrawal programme, documentation did not consistently reflect how the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 were embedded into the care planning process. Despite concerns with documentation, we saw that students received the care they required. We have made a recommendation for improvement.

Consent was obtained from students before they started their programme. Staff had received training on the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and students were made aware of the restrictions in place before completing the programme.

Students were protected from abuse or harm because staff had been trained to recognise, record and report any concerns. Students confirmed they felt safe during their stay at Narconon. One student told us, “I feel really safe and I’m learning to like myself.” There were enough staff on duty and deployed throughout the home to meet student’s support needs.

Staff had been trained to provide appropriate and safe personal care. They had followed the organisations training programme regarding the modules that students go through after withdrawal. Upon employment with Narconon, all staff members had completed the care certificate. Staff spoke highly about the opportunities for training and professional development. Several staff members were being supported to obtain a diploma in health and social care.

The service had been adapted and redeveloped with a range of facilities and equipment which met the needs of the students. Some staff also lived on site on the top floor. The home was clean and well maintained having been newly developed prior to registration in August 2015. A dog also lived on site and students spoke fondly about having the dog around.

Staff went above and beyond to promote and uphold studen

Inspection carried out on 8 December 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on the 8 December 2015 and was unannounced.

This location is an adapted large property with purpose built facilities in the village of Heathfield. It is registered to provide accommodation with personal care for up to 16 students (adult service users). The purpose of the service is to provide a non-medical detoxification and rehabilitation programme for students who are addicted to alcohol or drugs. Students withdraw from drugs and then take part in a programme of modules with the intention of self-learning.

The provider had developed an alternative non-medical/medicated intervention, rehabilitation and care programme for a variety of legal and illegal drugs and alcohol withdrawal. The care includes some elements which are based on guidance published in the United Kingdom but it does not include all of these and is an alternative to current recognised standardised drug and alcohol care and treatment methods.

It should be noted that the only part of the service provided at this location which is regulated by the commission is for ‘accommodation with personal care’ we do not regulate the treatments provided or judge their effectiveness.

Students choose to come to the location and they are sponsored or supported by someone close to them. The service is privately funded by students or their families.

Three students had been admitted since registration in August 2015.

There is a registered manager at the location who is also registered as the Nominated Individual for the provider. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.’

Staff had not been recruited using safe procedures for the protection of students.

Students were protected from abuse or harm because staff had been trained to recognise, record and report any concerns they might have. Assessments of risk had been carried out to help keep people safe during their stay at the service.

Staff had been trained to provide appropriate and safe personal care. They had followed the organisations training programme regarding the modules that students go through after withdrawal. The registered manager told us that staff had completed the skills for care, care certificate and after the inspection we received evidence of this.

Consent was obtained from students before they started their programme. The student we spoke with said they felt listened to and that staff were kind. Student’s nutritional needs were met during their programme.

The home had been adapted and redeveloped with a range of facilities and equipment which met the needs of the students. Some staff also lived on site on the top floor. The way the records were stored and organised required improvement. We have made a recommendation about this. There was a system for assessing and monitoring the quality of the service.

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (regulated activities regulations) 2014.

You can see the action we are taking against the provider at the back of this report.