Archived: Addaction - Preston YA

We do not currently rate independent standalone substance misuse services.

We found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

• Risk assessments were not always completed, up to date, or contained risk management plans. This meant that vital risk information was not always available to staff who may need it.

• Recovery plans were not always completed, up to date, or contained holistic and personalised information. This meant that information was not always available regarding plans for clients care. Clear and relevant goals had not been set and plans did not contain vital information.

• Client information was not stored securely prior to being added to the electronic record system. This meant that sensitive client information was at risk of breaching confidentiality. This was not in line with the provider’s data protection guidance.

• The auditing system was not effective in ensuring all client information was recorded, updated and available to relevant staff. Despite regular audits and reminders to staff and managers, essential client information needed to deliver safe care and treatment was not available.

However, we also found the following areas of good practice:

• The doctor employed by the service was receiving supervision and had a support structure in place. This meant that the doctor had the opportunity to reflect on their practice and have guidance and support.

• The service had amended the recovery plan template in order to capture client’s signatures and record if clients had accepted a copy of the plan. This had yet to be fully embedded in practice but had been completed for recently referred clients.

• The service had amended the competency to consent to treatment form to reflect the Gillick competency guidance which has no lower age limit. Clients are now assessed on their competency and the need for parental consent has been removed. This meant that all clients with competency to consent to treatment are offered a full service regardless of age or parental consent.

• Improvements to the interview room in Burnley have been carried out to minimise noise disturbance. This meant that client’s privacy and confidentiality was maintained.

We do not currently rate independent standalone substance misuse services.

We found the following areas of good practice:

• Staffing levels and skill mix were appropriate to meet the needs of the service. Staff turnover and sickness was particularly low. This meant that clients had consistent access to staff support.

• Compliance with mandatory training was good. Staff also had access to specialist training both within and outside the organisation and could develop specialist roles.

• Clients gave very positive feedback on the service they received and the quality and professionalism of staff members. Clients felt staff were kind and caring and we observed positive staff and client interactions.

• Access to the service was quick and staff had manageable caseloads.

• Staff stated they felt well supported by the senior management team. Staff described an open and honest culture with good morale.

However, we found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

• A risk assessment was not stored on the electronic recording system. This meant that other staff would not be aware of any risks regarding this client.

• Recovery plans were incomplete and not holistic. This meant that the clients’ goals were not clearly documented.

• The doctor employed by the service was not receiving any formal supervision. This meant that the doctor was not receiving any advice or guidance regarding best practice.

• There was a lack of sound proofing in the premises in Burnley. This meant that clients’ privacy and confidentiality was compromised due to the lack of sound proofing in the interview rooms.

• Gillick competency guidelines were not followed for all clients. Parental consent was sought for all clients aged under 14 regardless of their level of competency.