• Community
  • Community substance misuse service

Gateshead Recovery Partnership Also known as Change, Grow, Live

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

47 Jackson Street, Gateshead, NE8 1EE (0191) 594 7821

Provided and run by:
Change, Grow, Live

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 20 June 2022

Gateshead Recovery Partnership is a community substance misuse service for people living in Gateshead and the surrounding area. The service provides care and treatment for adults and is based in Jackson Street, Gateshead. The service is provided by a national provider of substance misuse services.

The service accepts referrals from healthcare professionals as well as self-referral.

The service is registered to provide one regulated activity;

• Treatment of disease, disorder and injury.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post. As the service did not store any controlled drugs, they were not required to have a controlled drugs accountable officer.

There had been one previous inspection of this service, carried out on 21 January 2019. The inspection found the provider to be meeting all of the standards inspected in the domains of safe effective, caring, responsive and well led.

Community-based substance misuse services

Good

Updated 20 June 2022

Gateshead Recovery Partnership is a community substance misuse service for people living in Gateshead and the surrounding area.

Our rating of this service stayed the same. We rated it as good because:

  • The service provided safe care. Clinical premises where clients were seen were safe, clean and well located for the client base. There were no waiting lists within the service, so clients were seen promptly. Staff assessed and managed risk well and followed good practice with respect to safeguarding.
  • Staff were highly motivated, client-focussed, skilled, experienced and up to date with their mandatory training requirements. Staff received appraisals, supervision and a comprehensive induction programme. Morale was high, and staff supported and worked well with each other. There were excellent examples of mutual support and teamwork.
  • Staff developed holistic, innovative and recovery-oriented care plans informed by a comprehensive assessment and in collaboration with families and carers. They provided a range of treatments that were informed by best-practice guidance and suitable to the individual needs of the clients. For example, harm reduction, community detoxification, substitute prescribing, and psychosocial interventions. Clients had access to a needle exchange on site and were offered hepatitis B and C testing.
  • Staff engaged in clinical audit to evaluate the quality of care they provided and used results to improve client care and treatment.
  • The teams included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of the clients, including a number of volunteers and ambassadors. Staff worked well together as a multidisciplinary team and with relevant services outside the organisation with which they had developed strong working relationships.
  • Staff treated clients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and understood their individual needs. Clients we spoke with were very positive about the service, where they said they were well treated, felt safe and that staff went ‘the extra mile’. They actively involved clients and families and carers in care decisions and were aware of their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
  • The service was well led with strong governance processes which ensured procedures relating to the work of the service ran smoothly. Managers and staff worked well with Commissioners and had robust alternative care pathways and referral systems to other services within the area to further develop good quality care and integration of services. Managers encouraged staff innovation and supported the development of these ideas to further improve patient care and treatment.

However:

  • The service location was not suitable for clients with mobility needs although staff were flexible about meeting people in other places if they could not physically access the service base.
  • Not all client care plans were signed to show that the client had received a copy.