You are here

Archived: Peterborough Recovery Service

Reports


Inspection carried out on 17 July 2013

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

We completed this follow up inspection to check that the provider had acted on improvements that we said needed to be made as a result of our inspection of 23 October 2012.

Our inspection of 17 July 2013 found that people who used the service were receiving all of the medical treatment and support they needed. A person said, �I see my keyworker and my doctor who know me and what help I need. I�ve no complaints because I get the help I need and the staff really want me to recover and tell me they can help me�.

We saw that people were treated with dignity and respect. This included staff making sure that people could speak with them in private. Also, measures were in place to ensure that confidential personal information was kept private.

People who used the service told us and records confirmed that there was a clear emphasis on rehabilitation with people being supported to begin and sustain their individual journeys to recovery.

Documents and records showed that people were reliably and safely receiving the medication they needed to support them during their recovery.

We saw that documents and records were clear, accurate and comprehensive. This enabled them to effectively guide staff when providing people with the personalised treatment and support they needed.

Inspection carried out on 23 October 2012

During a routine inspection

The provider had systems in place to promote the involvement of people who used the service. People told us they were not always able to express their views or be involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. People did not always receive information about their care or treatment choices and at times their privacy was not respected.

There were procedures in place to ensure that staff assessed the needs of people who used the service but these were not always reviewed on a regular basis. Care plans were not always current and people that we spoke with told us they did not feel that their needs were being met.

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

There was a system in place for the prescribing of substitute medicines but appropriate arrangements were not in place for obtaining, recording, and the safe keeping of medicines held on the premises. Standard procedures for dispensing and the safe administration of medicines were not readily available for staff reference.

People were cared for by staff who had good access to training and told us they were supported in their roles.

There was an effective system to monitor the quality of service that people received. However records that we checked were not always accurate and up to date.