You are here

Atlantic Recovery Centre Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 August 2019

We rated CGL Dudley and Walsall as good because:’

  • Staff understood how to protect clients from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse, and they knew how to apply it.
  • Staff kept detailed records of clients’ care and treatment. Records were clear, up-to-date and easily available to all staff providing care.
  • The service used systems and processes to safely prescribe, administer, record and store medicines. Staff regularly reviewed the effects of medications on each clients mental and physical health.
  • The service managed client safety incidents well. Staff recognised incidents and reported them appropriately. Managers investigated incidents and shared lessons learned with the whole team and the wider service. When things went wrong, staff apologised and gave clients honest information and suitable support.
  • Staff completed comprehensive assessments with clients when accessing the service. Staff made clients aware of harm minimisation and the risks of continued substance misuse. Safety planning was an integral part of recovery plans.
  • Staff provided a range of treatment and care for clients based on national guidance and best practice. They ensured that clients had good access to physical healthcare and supported them to live healthier lives.
  • The teams included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of clients under their care. Managers made sure that staff had the range of skills needed to provide high quality care. They supported staff with supervision and opportunities to update and further develop their skills. Managers provided an induction programme for new staff.
  • Staff from different disciplines worked together as a team to benefit clients. They supported each other to make sure clients had no gaps in their care. The teams had
  • effective working relationships with other relevant teams within the organisation and with relevant services outside the organisation.
  • Staff treated clients with compassion and kindness. They understood the individual needs of clients and supported clients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition.
  • The service was easy to access. Staff planned and managed discharge well. The service had alternative care pathways and referral systems for people whose needs it could not meet.
  • The design, layout, and furnishings of treatment rooms supported clients’ treatment, privacy and dignity.
  • 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. They had a good understanding of the services they managed and were visible in the service and approachable for clients and staff.
  • Our findings from the other key questions demonstrated that governance processes operated effectively at team level and that performance and risk were managed well.

However:

  • Appraisal completion rates were low due to a change in the CGL appraisal system. The service also recognised that work needed to be carried out to improve staff completion rates and were in the process of doing this therefore suspending the appraisal process temporarily.
Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 August 2019

We rated safe as good because:

  • All clinical premises where clients received care were safe, clean, well equipped, well furnished, well maintained and fit for purpose.

  • The service had enough staff, who knew the clients and received basic training to keep them safe from avoidable harm.

  • The service provided mandatory training in key skills to all staff and made sure everyone completed it.

  • Staff assessed and managed risks to clients and themselves well. They responded promptly to sudden deterioration in a clients’ physical and mental health. When necessary, staff worked with clients and their families and carers to develop recovery plans. Staff followed good personal safety protocols.

  • Staff understood how to protect clients from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse, and they knew how to apply it.

  • Staff kept detailed records of clients’ care and treatment. Records were clear, up-to-date and easily available to all staff providing care.

  • The service used systems and processes to safely prescribe, administer, record and store medicines. Staff regularly reviewed the effects of medications on each clients mental and physical health.

  • The service managed client safety incidents well. Staff recognised incidents and reported them appropriately. Managers investigated incidents and shared lessons learned with the whole team and the wider service. When things went wrong, staff apologised and gave clients honest information and suitable support.

Effective

Good

Updated 9 August 2019

We rated effective as good because:

  • Staff completed comprehensive assessments with clients when accessing the service. Staff made clients aware of harm minimisation and the risks of continued substance misuse. Safety planning was an integral part of recovery plans.

  • Staff provided a range of treatment and care for clients based on national guidance and best practice. They ensured that clients had good access to physical healthcare and supported them to live healthier lives.
  • The teams included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of clients under their care. Managers made sure that staff had the range of skills needed to provide high quality care. They supported staff with supervision and opportunities to update and further develop their skills. Managers provided an induction programme for new staff.

  • Staff from different disciplines worked together as a team to benefit clients. They supported each other to make sure clients had no gaps in their care. The teams had effective working relationships with other relevant teams within the organisation and with relevant services outside the organisation.

  • Staff supported clients to make decisions on their care for themselves. They understood the service’s policy on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and knew what to do if a client’s capacity to make decisions about their care might be impaired.

However:

  • Appraisal completion rates were low due to a change in the CGL appraisal system. The service also recognised that work needed to be carried out to improve staff completion rates and were in the process of doing this therefore suspending the appraisal process temporarily.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 August 2019

We rated caring as good because:

  • Staff treated clients with compassion and kindness. They understood the individual needs of clients and supported clients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition.

  • Staff involved clients in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. They ensured that clients had easy access to additional support.
  • Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

Responsive

Good

Updated 9 August 2019

We rated responsive as good because:

  • The service was easy to access. Staff planned and managed discharge well. The service had alternative care pathways and referral systems for people whose needs it could not meet.

  • The design, layout, and furnishings of treatment rooms supported clients’ treatment, privacy and dignity.
  • The service met the needs of all clients, including those with a protected characteristic or with communication support needs.

  • The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the results, and shared these with the whole team and wider service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 9 August 2019

We rated well-led as good because:

  • Leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles. They had a good understanding of the services they managed and were visible in the service and approachable for clients and staff.

  • Staff knew and understood the provider’s vision and values and how they (were) applied to the work of their team.

  • Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They said the trust promoted equality and diversity in daily work and provided opportunities for development and career progression. They could raise any concerns without fear.

  • Our findings from the other key questions demonstrated that governance processes operated effectively at team level and that performance and risk were managed well.

  • Teams had access to the information they needed to provide safe and effective care and used that information to good effect.
  • Staff collected analysed data about outcomes and performance and engaged actively in local and national quality improvement activities.

  • Managers engaged actively other local health and social care providers to ensure that an integrated health and care system was commissioned and provided to meet the needs of the local population. Managers from the service participated actively in the work of the local transforming care partnership.

Checks on specific services

Community-based substance misuse services

Good

Updated 9 August 2019