The Care Quality Commission
  • Community
  • Community substance misuse service

Via - R3 - Redbridge

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Ilford Chambers, 11 Chapel Road, Ilford, IG1 2DR 0300 303 46

Provided and run by:
Via Community Ltd

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

The service was previously rated good overall. Following this inspection, the rating has stayed the same. We inspected all quality statements across all key questions. We have combined the scores for these to achieve the overall rating.

We found the following areas of good practice:

  • 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 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 feedback about and development of the service in several ways. They could contribute to regular 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. The governance processes ensured that staff were aware of necessary procedures and the service ran smoothly. Leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles. Staff said they felt respected, supported and valued.

During the inspection visit, the inspection team:

  • Visited the service, looked at the quality of the environment and observed how staff were caring for clients.
  • Spoke with 8 clients who were using the service.
  • Spoke with 2 carers or relatives of people using the service.
  • Spoke with the service manager and an operations manager.
  • Spoke with 10 members of staff including senior support worker, receptionist, recovery practitioner, lead psychologist, medical prescribers, nurses and a senior administrator.
  • Reviewed staff supervision records.
  • Reviewed 12 care and treatment records of clients.
  • Observed three client groups run by the service.
  • Observed one integrated governance meeting and a morning briefing.
  • Carried out a specific check of the medicine’s management.
  • Looked at a range of service policies, procedures and other documents relating to the running of the service.
  • Gathered feedback from service partners and stakeholders.

11 & 13 February 2020

During a routine inspection

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.