Via - R3 - Redbridge

We rated Westminster Drug Project Redbridge 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 followed good practice with respect to safeguarding.
• Staff provided a range of care and treatment interventions suitable for the client group and consistent with national guidance about best practice. They ensured that clients had good access to physical healthcare and supported clients to live healthier lives. The service user outcomes in relation to clients successfully completing treatment was above the national benchmark for all three pathways (alcohol, non-opiate and opiate).
• Staff treated clients with compassion and kindness, and understood the individual needs of clients. Clients were involved in the service in a number of ways. They could contribute feedback, attend service user forum meetings and make suggestions for service improvement. Staff welcomed their families and offered support to them, when appropriate.
• The service was easy to access. Staff planned and managed discharge well and had alternative pathways for people whose needs it could not meet.
• The service was well led, and the governance processes ensured that its procedures ran smoothly. Leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles, and staff felt respected, supported and valued.

However:

• Staff did not always comprehensively assess the risks to clients and did not always complete and review risk management plans to demonstrate mitigation of identified risks. Although staff demonstrated that they knew their clients well, and attended daily morning meetings where risks were discussed, this presented a risk because important information may get missed.

• Records were not always easily available to all staff providing care. Key documents relating to clients’ care and treatment were not clearly labelled, so it was difficult finding certain records. This posed a risk to new staff or agency staff members who may struggle to find key documents when working with clients. Staff also told us that it was time consuming uploading documentation to the electronic system.
• Clients’ care plans were often generic. Whilst they addressed clients’ needs, they were not personalised or holistic.
• The service had not ensured that staff received all planned supervision in recent months, although staff told us that they felt supported and received supervision.
• When a client was assessed as having a mental health need, staff did not always liaise with the clients’ mental health team. This meant that staff did not always obtain essential information on the client’s mental health history, which would be useful to inform planning of care and treatment.