The Care Quality Commission
  • Residential substance misuse service

Archived: Front Hastings Street Also known as Hastings Street

17-21 Hastings Street, Luton, Bedfordshire, LU1 5BE (01582) 730113

Provided and run by:
PCP (Luton) Limited

All Inspections

27 February 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

During our last scheduled inspection of Front Hastings Street in October 2013, we identified non-compliance regarding people's privacy and dignity. We found this was not always respected and information provided did not accurately reflect some aspects of the treatment programme. We found that people who used the service, staff and visitors were not always protected against the risk of unsafe/unsuitable premises. For example some areas of the house were half decorated and we saw that fire safety records and equipment were not maintained, along with portable appliance testing of equipment. The complaints system in place was ineffective, and we found the provider had failed to respond to complaints appropriately.

We imposed compliance actions and told the provider they needed to make improvements in these areas. On 27 February 2014, we reviewed the actions the provider had taken.

We found that the accommodation had been redecorated. Privacy screens were in use in shared bedrooms. We found information had been added to the service user guide which better explained the service offered and the possibility of having to share rooms. We found that fire detection systems were being upgraded, and an ongoing maintenance programme was in place.

We found the complaints policy was accessible and records of complaints, and the action taken, were appropriately maintained.

16 October 2013

During a routine inspection

When we inspected Front Hastings Street on 16 October 2013, we met four of the five people who were staying there at the time. We spoke with them at length about their experiences of this service, and how the staff supported them. One of them told us, "It's fine. Bed, cooker, washing machine, clean and comfortable. It's a basic treatment centre, but everything is fine. The staff are experienced and challenge us, but that's what's needed for addiction treatment." Others we spoke with agreed, however these sentiments were not shared by everyone. Others felt some staff were abrupt, and the accommodation substandard.

The information given to people about their treatment and accommodation, did not accurately reflect what was actually provided. We found the accommodation was basic, and did not provide people with any privacy or any facility for quiet time to reflect on work which was required as part of the treatment programme. Some areas of the house were partially decorated which made them look neglected, and some areas smelt musty and needed cleaning. However this depended on the people who used the service at any one time,as they were responsible for cleaning tasks, as part of their programme.

The systems in place to ensure the safety of equipment and premises was ineffective, and the provider had failed to respond to complaints in line with their own policies.

17 July 2012

During a routine inspection

During our visit to Front Hastings Street on 17 July 2012 we spoke with three of the five people who were staying at this accommodation while they received treatment for substance misuse from the PCP Luton treatment centre.

Two people told us they had received good information about the service either on, or prior to admission, and said that the PCP Luton website was very informative and had been helpful to them. The third person we spoke with said that their family had done all the research prior to their admission and arranged things for them. One person said that the information they received both from the website and over the telephone, 'was very clear and included details of the cost and the contract involved in the programme'.

The people that we spoke with described a strict contract and timetable of treatment and support, but said they recognised this was an important part of their treatment. People said that where possible, they were given choices, but understood that the ethos of the programme involved some restriction on choices for the treatment to be effective, particularly in the early stages of the programme. People described being given more responsibility and opportunities to make personal choices as they progressed through their treatment.

People were satisfied with their treatment, and complimented the staff who supported them. One said. 'The counsellors are very good; they are fully equipped to understand what I'm going through. I 'm very happy with the programme'. They said they were always treated with respect by the staff.