Luton Alliance Clinical and Care

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We rated responsive as good. We assessed 6 quality statements. There was no waiting list to access treatment and the service understood barriers to accessing care and were able to explain routes used to increase engagement. People were able to access the service when they needed it. Staff were appropriately trained in equality and diversity.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

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. However, all service users we spoke with confirmed they had a care plan and knew what their goals were.

Care plans included physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

Service users could choose the treatment pathway that was most suited to them, this could be one-to-one sessions, group work or using online support. Service users were involved in planning and making shared decisions about their care and treatment, so it was centred around them and their needs.

We observed person-centred interactions between staff and service users.

Service users felt that staff were knowledgeable and understood the health and social care needs of the service user group.

Service users told us that the service had flexibly in its appointment system and worked in a joined-up way with other services that could offer support.

Staff had a good understanding of the needs of the service user group. Staff worked closely with health care professionals and records showed effective partnership working had taken place during reviews of people’s care.

Staff had access to specialist training. This included training on domestic abuse, specialist training on the impact of homelessness and needle and syringe training, as well as specialist group work and motivational interviewing courses.

The service understood people’s communication needs and supplied information in formats that were accessible to them, including information available in other languages. Interpreters were available if required and the service had several staff members who were bilingual.

Staff understood GDPR and data was stored securely and only shared with service user consent. Overall, 87% of staff had completed mandatory data protection and information security training. The service had policies in place which were in line with current best practice guidance around Accessible Information Standard (AIS) and GDPR.

Service users confirmed they knew how to access the complaints policy, and said they felt comfortable in raising concerns if they needed to do so. No service users we spoke with had made a complaint.

The service had a formal complaints policy and procedure. The building recoveries in community’s co-ordinator and deputy services manager were responsible for reviewing complaints and sharing the outcomes with teams and service users.

Learning from complaints and concerns was seen as an opportunity for improvement and was discussed as a standing agenda item at team meetings.

The service was open to service users 09.30am-16.30pm Monday to Thursday and 13.00pm-16.30pm on a Friday, there was no weekend provision. Staff told us they could offer flexibility around these opening times to support service users who were working. The service offered late evening out of hours clinics for clients accessing treatment for alcohol and opiate use and on a separate evening they offered a clinic for women.

People we spoke with told us the service was accessible; we noted that the service had a ramp to enter the premises and there were accessible interview rooms.

Leaders and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of people in accessing care, treatment and support, the service had access to bi-lingual staff, an interpreter service was available and there was plenty of literature available in languages used by the local community.

Care plans considered people people's needs and what reasonable adjustments could be made to ensure people have equal access to services, for example, home visits.

Service users we spoke with did not have any concerns about discrimination within the service, and most said that staff treated people equally. One service user we spoke with described the service as very inclusive and welcoming. However, one service user said that they felt the service was more targeted to service users who needed prescribing.

Service users told us they received the care, support and medical support when needed.

Staff told us people were treated equally and as individuals.

The provider had policies in place to ensure people were treated equally. There were opportunities for people to give feedback about their care and support.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.