You are here

Archived: Risley Prison - IDTS

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 15, 16 July 2013
Date of Publication: 16 August 2013
Inspection Report published 16 August 2013 PDF

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

How this check was done

We carried out a visit on 15 July 2013 and 16 July 2013, observed how people were being cared for, talked with people who use the service and talked with staff. We reviewed information given to us by the provider and took advice from our pharmacist.

Our judgement

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

Reasons for our judgement

We spoke with the registered manager for the service who held the post of service lead. We wanted to know what systems were in place to monitor the quality of services provided at Risley. We were told that CRI tried to ensure that prisoners had the same access to services available to people who lived in the community.

The registered manager told us that the service was well supported by the prison; they had good working relationships with prison officers and senior staff across the prison.

We saw that CRI met regularly with partner agencies, commissioners and prison staff to discuss working practices and there were good working relationships between CRI and other partnership agencies and with prison staff.

We saw that a Joint Prison Health Partnership Board meeting was held every 3 months. This was attended by all partnership agencies, commissioners and senior prison staff. The meeting provided an opportunity to review death in custody incidents, future commissioning arrangements and untoward and complex incidents and complaints. This meant that there were joint arrangements in place to assess and review the health and social care needs of prisoners, to consider risk and to plan for their future care needs to which CRI was part of.

Other measures in place to monitor service delivery included daily handover sessions and a professionals lunch time meetings was held when information concerning patients was shared.

We found that the strength of the service was its commitment to supporting and empowering prisoners to become drug free. However we found that there were insufficient audits in place around the administration of methadone and other medicines to prisoner across the prison site.