Archived: Lifeline Oxfordshire Recovery Services: Oxford

We saw that staff and managers were passionate about the people they supported and were committed to ensuring people completed their treatment programme. People were treated with dignity and respect. They were given appropriate information about the treatment options available to them. We found that people had been involved in decisions about the pace of reducing doses of medication.

People told us they were satisfied with their treatment and staff knew people and their needs well. We found that people's needs had been assessed prior to a service being offered. Care and treatment been planned on the basis of assessments to ensure the care delivered met people's needs and kept them safe.

Staff received regular supervision, appraisal and training to enable them to undertake their roles. We found that the provider acknowledged that working in this type of service could be emotionally challenging and provided staff with regular support.

Systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided to people. Several improvements had been made in response to people's concerns. The service had reviewed their access procedure to ensure that people could access the service quickly when they felt motivated and actively sought treatment.

During our visit on 14 February 2013 we identified concerns relating to people's care and treatment records. We found records did not always accurately describe the care and treatment people received and how risks should be managed. At our visit on 7 March 2014 we found that the provider had completed their action plan and people's records were accurate and fit for purpose.

We found records did not always accurately describe the care and treatment people required and had received. Two of the nine people's records we saw did not record how identified risks from people's behaviour should be managed. Some case notes completed by staff relating to community recovery group sessions did not record the progress being made in relation to the stated aims of interventions.

We saw some people had taken part in community recovery group programmes without a recovery plan having first been agreed. This meant that people were receiving interventions before staff had fully understood people's needs, or to negotiate and agree how the intervention would support each person.

Paper forms, recording people's initial service induction meeting, were not always handled securely or safely. For example one of the eight people we spoke with told us that they had to repeat their induction meetings as the information they had previously shared with the service could not be located.