You are here

Archived: Lewisham Integrated Treatment Services

Reports


During a check to make sure that the improvements required had been made

At our previous inspection on 19 September 2013 we found that there was not a system in place to identify which training courses staff had completed and to identify when staff required refresher training.

At this follow up inspection a new system had been put in place to record when staff had completed their training and to identify when refresher training was due. The provider sent us their training log which evidenced that all staff had either completed their training or were booked onto a course to complete it.

Inspection carried out on 19 September 2013

During a routine inspection

People using the service told us, �It�s excellent. Very professional.� In relation to the support and treatment they had been provided with, one person told us, �you get what you put in. They [the staff] let you know there is more to life than drugs.�

People had been assessed and care plans had been developed. These identified the outcomes people wished to achieve from taking part in the service. People had allocated staff members to discuss their progress and support them through the treatment programme.

There were safeguarding policies and procedures in place. Staff were knowledgeable in recognising potential signs of abuse and were aware of the reporting processes. There was joint working between the service and the local safeguarding board to ensure the appropriate sharing of information.

There were appropriate recruitment and selection processes in place. A centralised human resources department managed all new appointments with input from the service�s manager. People were recruited against an agreed set of criteria to ensure they had the skills and knowledge required to support people using the service.

Staff reported that they felt well supported by their manager and the staff team. There were processes in place to formally support people through training, supervision and appraisals. However, there were no processes in place to ensure that staff had completed the service�s required training.

There were processes in place to obtain the views of people who used the service. A service user group and a service user council had been developed to obtain people�s views on the service provided. Feedback from these groups fed into staff meetings.

There was a process for managing incidents and complaints. We saw that all incidents and complaints had been either investigated and responded to, or the manager of the service was in the process of doing so.