Shardale St Annes

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

This means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

Clients had individualised risk assessments and care plans which were up to date.

The service had a structured recovery model which had been in place and embedded over a number of years. Clients reported that this model had benefited and aided them in progressing with their recovery.

The service had a positive relationship with a local GP who supported clients with their physical health needs.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We reviewed 6 care records during the assessment. The service used paper-based records, and each client had an individual folder which was stored in a locked cabinet within the staff office.

Staff undertook an assessment of potential clients prior to their admission which included areas such as physical health issues, emotional health, offending behaviour, education and family dynamics.

Staff developed care plans that met the needs identified during assessment. Care plans were personalised, holistic and recovery-oriented to the specific client.

The service had a specific recovery model which it had utilised since opening to support clients. The recovery programme followed a model based around core values, supported by key worker sessions and individual therapy sessions if the client needed them. The model focused on developing communication, resilience and personal responsibility within a supportive community environment. The service had a specific timetable that all clients were expected to follow as part of their treatment.

Clients were registered with a local GP upon admission and would be seen by a doctor within 48 hours of their admission. Staff described a close working relationship with the GP and gave positive feedback about their involvement. Staff explained that clients would be prompted to book their own appointments with the GP when they needed to access them.

The service had a small staff team who were passionate about their roles and the care and treatment that the service provided.

Staff received group supervision externally once a month. Managers did not have information or oversight as to which staff had attended this supervision session each month during the on-site inspection. We requested for this information to be provided as part of our data requests, but this was unable to be provided due to unforeseen circumstances that impacted on the Registered Manager’s ability to fulfil the information requests. We could therefore not be fully assured that staff had received appropriate supervision.

Managers noted that all staff would receive an appraisal every 18 months and that all staff were due one as of the time of the on-site inspection.

Managers stated that team meetings were held on a monthly basis, and these followed a set agenda that staff could add to. Managers explained that there had been some monthly team meetings missed recently, and the last one was held 3 months prior to the on-site inspection. We requested copies of the last 3 team meeting minutes as part of our data requests, but these were unable to be provided due to unforeseen circumstances that impacted on the Registered Manager’s ability to fulfil the information requests.

The service held 2 handovers a day for staff and had a communication book in which any key information was recorded that staff or managers needed to be aware of.

Clients told us that the groups and sessions they attended had helped them understand and manage their health and social needs. Group work gave them the opportunity to discuss their feelings, and to challenge and support each other. They could explore the reasons for their substance misuse and develop ways to deal with it. Clients said the community was a safe environment where they felt supported.

Staff encouraged clients to live healthier lives through offering support, advice and information about behaviours, goals and future planning. This included education around healthy eating advice, smoking cessation and regular exercise. The provider encouraged clients to register as patients with a local GP. Clients were supported to attend appointments at the GP, dentist or other health appointments they needed.

The service used a treatment outcome measure with clients to monitor their progress within the service. This tool helped staff to monitor and identify how clients were feeling and enabled them to cross-reference this against previous scores to track progress. Managers advised that the scores would be recorded at each individual client key worker session.

Staff also used the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) which is an alcohol harm screening tool. Client scores were recorded on admission and then reviewed at key worker sessions.

The service provided clients with a contract upon admission which made clear the expectations for clients on entering the service.

We reviewed client records which contained signed consent to share information forms.

Where clients wished to exit their treatment early, staff made sure that the clients understood the decision they were making and asked them to sign declaration forms confirming that they understood the decision and had been informed of the relevant information by staff.

Staff explained that if they had any concerns about a client’s memory which may impact their capacity to consent, then they would encourage them to seek support and an assessment with the GP. Managers noted that as part of the service’s relationship with the GP, they asked about alcohol related dementia and the GP would do a standard neurological assessment after 3 months.