Luton Alliance Clinical and Care

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

We rated effective as good. We assessed 6 quality statements. Staff completed comprehensive assessments with service users on accessing the service. They worked with service users to develop personalised care plans. However, care plans were not completed for all care records we reviewed. Care plans reflected the assessed needs, were personalised, holistic and recovery oriented. However, copies of care plans were not given to service users. Staff used recognised rating scales to assess and record severity and outcomes. They also participated in clinical audit, benchmarking and quality improvement initiatives.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Service users felt involved in their assessments and their care plans. People we spoke with were confident their individual needs had been assessed and support provided included their involvement.

Staff we spoke with said they completed care plans in collaboration with service users, but service users did not regularly receive a copy. Care plans were missing in 2 of the 8 care records that we reviewed. Leaders told us this was an area of improvement that was on the service risk register.

Assessments included the service user’s health, care, wellbeing and lifestyle, to enable service users to receive care or treatment that has the best possible outcomes.

Service users who were on medically assisted treatment had a full physical health assessment before commencing treatment. This included blood tests where appropriate. Staff supported service users to access other services and worked closely with other care professionals.

Care plans evidenced people’s physical health, wellbeing and communication needs had been fully assessed. However, care plans were missing in 2 of the 8 care records that we reviewed.

Regular care plan reviews had been carried out for 6 of the 8 records we reviewed. The provider had a process in place to audit care plans and said this was a current area of ongoing improvement.

Service users were supported to care for their physical health and staff collaborated with external organisations to support service users physical and mental health needs.

Staff and leaders had up to date knowledge on current good practice and standards, relevant to their service.

The service used nationally recognised tools appropriately to assess and monitor people’s needs, including the drug abuse screening test (DAST-10) which identifies consequences related to drug abuse and the severity of alcohol dependence questionnaire (SADQ) used tomeasure the severity of alcohol dependence.

The service had a range of groups available to service users, these included acupuncture, motivational groups and alcohol pre-detox groups. The service had a weekly brunch club where service users could get free sandwiches, donated by a local takeaway.

Service users felt there was effective information sharing between internal and external organisations involved in their care. People we spoke with felt different parts of their care and treatment worked well together, for example, joint working with mental health services and local GP surgeries.

Staff we spoke with felt there was effective communication, coordination and collaboration both internally and with external organisations. Staff felt there was effective communication and coordination within their own staff team to enable them to plan and deliver people’s care and support. For example, specialist community engagement workers, outreach workers, specialist housing workers, criminal justice workers and Hospital Liaison Recovery Workers.

We reviewed multidisciplinary team meeting (MDT) minutes and found effective recording of MDT communication between professionals, teams and services. The service had daily ‘flash’ meetings where they discussed service user risk or any changes in risk and liaised with other external agencies to ensure service user care and safety.

Service users were encouraged and supported to make healthier choices. For example, with eating and drinking. Groups and 121 sessions covered healthier lifestyle choices.

Service users told us both they and their partners were encouraged to have hepatitis testing through the service.

Staff told us they involved people in conversations about their health and well-being and promoted healthier options, for example taking service users to GP appointments, joint working with local health services, promoting smoking cessation and promoting emotional health webinars.

We reviewed 8 care records during our assessment. Two service users did not have care plans, the care plans that were in place had good information to allow staff to effectively understand people’s healthcare needs.

The service had joint working agreements in place with external organisations to support service user health and wellbeing.

Service users felt that staff supported them to achieve positive outcomes. Service users confirmed that staff monitored their progress throughout treatment and that discharge from the service was well managed.

Staff used recognised rating scales to assess and record dependence severity and outcomes. Rating scales were incorporated into the electronic care records system and were completed as part of the assessment process and reviewed again at different stages of treatment.

Staff told us that they used treatment outcomes profile (TOPS) to assess service users progress and outcomes before, during and at the end of treatment.

Care plans contained agreed goals, reflected the assessed needs, were personalised, holistic and recovery oriented.

Service users felt their views and wishes were considered when care was planned, service users understood their rights around consenting to treatment and information sharing.

We saw evidence that staff wrote to GPs to keep them informed of the treatment being provided by the service. Staff obtained clients’ consent before requesting and sharing information with their registered GPs.

Staff assessed and recorded capacity to consent clearly within clinical assessments.

Staff had mandatory training in the Mental Capacity Act. Overall, 97% of staff had completed Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards training.