ReNew

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

At our last assessment we rated effective as good. At this assessment, the rating has remained good.

Staff assessed the physical and mental health of all clients. They developed individual care plans which were reviewed regularly through multidisciplinary discussion and updated when needed.

Staff provided a range of treatment and care for clients based on national guidance and best practice. The team included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of clients using the service. Staff from different disciplines worked together as a team to benefit clients.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Effective.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

We looked at 6 clients’ care records. We saw evidence within these care records that staff completed a comprehensive assessment of need including history of substance misuse. Assessments identified clients’ recovery capital and support networks.

Staff made sure that clients had a full physical health assessment and knew about any physical health problems. Clients we spoke to told us that they felt clear and comfortable with the process and what would happen to them next.

Staff developed a comprehensive care plan for each client that met their mental and physical health needs. Clients and their families were invited to take part in this process. A client who used the service described being supported “to make better choices”.

Staff regularly reviewed and updated care plans when clients' needs changed.

Care plans were personalised, holistic and recovery-orientated and identified the client’s keyworker.

Staff responded promptly to any sudden deterioration in a client's health, for example management and response to relapse.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff provided a range of care and treatment interventions suitable for the client group such as substitute medicines, therapeutic activities and recovery groups. The interventions were those recommended by, and were delivered in line with, guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

Staff ensured that clients had good access to physical healthcare, including access to specialists when needed.

We saw evidence in care records that staff routinely offered blood borne virus testing to clients and supported them to access treatment for any viruses detected.

Staff were experienced and qualified and had the right skills and knowledge to meet the needs of the client group.

Managers provided new staff with an appropriate induction and were supported in their roles with supervision (meetings to discuss case management, to reflect on and learn from practice, and for personal support and professional development) and appraisal of their work performance. Staff had received specialist training and recently completed ketamine training as well as a training update in relation to housing.

Managers dealt with poor staff performance promptly and effectively. The provider had a performance management policy which provided advice and guidance for dealing with poor performance in an appropriate, supportive and timely manner.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff held regular and effective multidisciplinary meetings. Clinicians and other professionals worked together to address any issues. Specific safeguarding multidisciplinary meetings also took place.

The teams had effective working relationships, including good handovers, with other relevant teams within the organisation. This included identifying tasks, which staff were responsible for such as incident response and safeguarding arrangements.

The teams had effective working relationships with teams outside the organisation and staff took a proactive approach when representing within their community and working with outside agencies.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service always supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to fully maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff supported clients to live healthier lives – for example, through participation in smoking cessation schemes, healthy eating advice, managing cardiovascular risks, screening for cancer, and dealing with issues relating to substance misuse.

Service activities helped promote a healthy lifestyle for clients. For example, homeless people had access to laundry facilities, a canteen was available and, social activities including regionally specific games were available for people from the eastern European community.

The service also has won awards for its in-house podcast which has been used to support people and challenge stigma around drug and alcohol use.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The service used various quality monitoring methods to identify areas of improvement including forums and surveys. Staff asked for feedback and managers were observed with a strong knowledge of their clients’ needs.

Staff submitted reports about care and treatment outcomes to the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System (NDTMS).

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff took all practical steps to enable clients to make their own decisions.

We saw evidence in care records that staff ensured clients had agreed and signed confidentiality agreements in relation to which parties staff could share their personal information with, and they were accessible to all staff involved in the client’s care and treatment.

Mental Capacity Act

For clients who might have impaired mental capacity, staff ensured capacity to consent had been assessed and recorded appropriately. They did this on a decision-specific basis with regard to significant decisions. Mandatory training in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) was up to date and staff we spoke to were able to explain its principles to us.

Staff had received training in and had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, in particular the five statutory principles. They were able to identify where mental capacity was a concern in a client consenting to treatment.

Staff knew where to get advice from within the provider regarding the Mental Capacity Act and capacity assessments or pathways into local community mental health teams for support. A clear policy was up to date and in place for occasions if clients’ capacity was temporarily impaired due to the use of illicit substances or inebriation.

If clients lacked capacity, staff ensured decisions were made in their best interests, recognising the importance of the person’s wishes, feelings, culture and history.