• Community
  • Community substance misuse service

East Kent Substance Misuse Service - Ashford

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Transport House, Drum Lane, Ashford, Kent, TN23 1LQ 07796 614997

Provided and run by:
The Forward Trust

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 16 December 2021

East Kent Substance Misuse Service Ashford provides specialist community treatment and support for adults affected by substance misuse and is commissioned to provide treatment for people who live in East Kent.

The service is one of four in East Kent provided by The Forward Trust. The Kent Drug and Alcohol Team funded treatment for the majority of clients at the service. The service accepts referrals from a range of professionals and people could also self-refer.

The service offers a range of services including initial advice; assessment and harm reduction services including needle exchange; prescribed medicine for alcohol and opiate detoxification; naloxone dispensing (emergency reversal of opiate overdose); group recovery programmes; family support groups; one-to-one key working sessions and doctor and nurse clinics which included health checks and blood borne virus testing.

The service was last inspected on 26th September 2019 where it was rated good overall. The key questions are services safe, are services effective, are services caring, are services responsive and are services well led were all rated good.

There was a registered manager at the service.

The service is registered to provide the regulated activity of treatment for disease, disorder and injury.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 16 December 2021

East Kent Substance Misuse Service - Ashford provides specialist community treatment and support for adults affected by substance misuse. We rated the service as good because:

  • The service provided safe care. The premises where clients were seen were safe and clean. The number of clients on the caseload of the teams, and of individual members of staff, was not too high to prevent staff from giving each client the time they needed. Staff assessed and managed risk well and followed good practice with respect to safeguarding.
  • Staff completed comprehensive assessments for clients on admission to the service. They worked with clients to develop individual care plans and updated them as needed. Care plans reflected the assessed needs, were personalised, holistic and recovery-oriented. They provided a range of treatments suitable to the needs of the clients and in line with national guidance and best practice. For example, staff monitored clients undergoing detoxification to ensure they took their medicines safely and appropriately, and staff escalated any withdrawal symptoms appropriately. Staff engaged in clinical audit to evaluate the quality of care they provided.
  • The teams included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of patients under their care. Managers made sure that staff had the range of skills needed to provide high quality care. They supported staff with appraisals, supervision, and opportunities to update and further develop their skills. Managers provided an induction programme for new staff.
  • Staff cared for and treated people with kindness and compassion. Staff went the extra mile to care and support clients. For example, staff drove clients to and from other services where they could receive appropriate care and treatment and provided accommodation as part of their aftercare. Staff provided emotional support to clients who were grieving, and clients felt empowered to overcome their grief without resorting to using substances.
  • Feedback from all the clients we spoke to were overwhelmingly positive. Clients told us they staff respected their dignity and privacy and spoke to them in a kind and compassionate way. Staff provided holistic care to clients ensuring all aspects of their needs were being met including personal and social care needs. They understood the individual needs of clients and supported them to understand and manage their care and treatment. Staff informed and involved families and carers fully in assessments and in the design of care and treatment interventions with the client’s permission.
  • The service was easy to access. Staff planned and managed clients discharge well. The service had alternative care pathways and referral systems for people whose needs it could not meet. The service met the needs of all clients, including those with a protected characteristic or with communication support needs.
  • Leaders had the skills, knowledge, and experience to perform their roles. The service leaders had a good understanding of the service and could clearly describe how the teams worked together to provide good quality care. Staff felt respected, supported, and valued. They said the provider promoted equality and diversity in daily work and provided opportunities for development and career progression. They could raise any concerns without fear of retribution. Staff collected and analysed data about outcomes and performance.

However:

  • Although we saw that the governance processes were largely effective, the service had not ensured that staff all knew to keep fire doors closed even though monthly audits stated that all fire doors were kept closed, we found fire doors wedged open on inspection.
  • Cleaning rooms and clinic rooms were left open when not in use. The cleaning room contained cleaning products which could pose a risk to health. Although staff told us that the cleaning room door was always closed and there were no clients in reception at the time of our inspection.