Archived: Addaction - Cobbold Road

As part of this inspection we spoke with four people who used the service, five staff including the manager. We also reviewed records relating to the management of the service which included the care records of four people who used the service.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People's care files contained risk assessments which included the description of the risks and the required actions needed to be taken to minimise the risks and to ensure people's safety and welfare. The risks included substance misuse issues, mental health, forensic history, housing status, level of suicidal intent, neglect, childcare issues involving social services and sexual health.

There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. The service had a business continuity plan to help dealing with emergencies or disruptions to the service. Staff told us there were procedures in place to ensure their safety while they provided one to one support to people both within the service and in the community.

We found there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

Is the service effective?

We received positive feedback from four people we spoke with. Their feedback included 'They are quite good, it's a good service', 'Good, so far', 'I think it's very good actually' and 'It's the best place to get support.'

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. We saw that comprehensive assessments had been carried out regarding the needs of people, which included details about each person's preferences and needs. This started in the initial interview and updated in subsequent assessments. People were allocated to a key worker who provided regular one to one support to them and kept their recovery plans up to date in line with the person's progress.

Is the service caring?

People who used the service were given appropriate information and support regarding their care or treatment. People who intended to use the service could drop in, call or referred to the service by various professionals such as their GP. There was a procedure in place regarding the acceptance of new referrals and how to engage with people who intended to use the service. One person told us 'I was told about the right groups to attend and was offered information if I had financial or housing related problems.'

People's diversity, values and human rights were respected. We found the service had wheelchair accessible facilities as part of ensuring equal access. People who used the service came from diverse cultural and ethnic background. Staff and volunteers were also diverse and had training regarding equality and diversity. The service had a 'Service User Charter' which was on display and was given to people during their initial assessment. This document stated for example that people were to be treated equally, with respect, individuality and fairness. Four people who used the service told us they felt respected and had no problems regarding how staff treated them. They also said they were fully informed about the service and they understood the care and treatment choices available to them.

Is the service responsive?

The four care records we looked at contained people's needs assessment, recovery plan, treatment outcome profile and their risk assessment. The care plans addressed needs related to housing, substance use, physical health, mental health, criminal justice, relationships / family / children, finances, education / training and employment. We found people's care plans reflected their individual needs.

The provider took account of complaints and comments to improve the service and there was evidence that people's views were regularly sought through various forums. People were also able to make comments and suggestions regarding the service through a 'Have your say', 'Suggestions' or 'Complaints' box. We saw one of the comments which included 'The staff at Addaction is great.' We also found people's comments regarding the service were taken seriously and one of these was discussed on the team meeting we attended. The comment was about the changed structure of one of the group sessions and it was taken into account when the potential solutions were discussed and decided.

Is the service well-led?

There was a system in place to monitor the quality of the service. The manager monitored the progress of people and the service's performance through regular team meetings and discussions with all staff members. The manager told us they had to complete two audits a year and we were shown the records of the audit of the service's safeguarding activity. We found the service completed two self-assessments regarding how they met the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Quality Standards, one for Alcohol Dependence & Harmful Alcohol Use and one for Drug Use Disorders which assisted the manager to identify areas for improvement. We were told that the commissioner monitored the quality of the service through 'mystery shopping' and the manager met with the commissioner and produced reports on the statistics and outcome results of the service.

Staff said 'It's very busy, there's a lot of demand for services', 'I really enjoy working here, there's a good team spirit', 'We all look after each and support each other' and it was a 'very supportive environment, very keen on supporting clients.'

We saw that staff knew how to communicate with people, and interacted warmly with them. Staff received sufficient support to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard. The provider had systems in place to gain and review consent from people who used the service. Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider was aware of the legal requirements.

There were systems in place aimed at ensuring people experienced care and support that met their needs. There was evidence of people's needs being met by the service.

Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work.There were systems in place aimed at protecting people from the risk of abuse. Most people felt safe in the service.

People liked the fact that they did not feel 'judged' by others using the service or staff.

People agreed that coming to the service gave them 'a purpose' and that the project is 'helping them to stay off drugs'.

People were very positive about their key workers and the support given around formulating their recovery plans.