Archived: Addaction - Grantham

Updated 27 February 2017

Addaction Grantham is an adult community substance misuse service provided by Addaction. The organisation Addaction was set up in 1967 and has 120 services across England and Scotland. Addaction provides services for adults, young people, families and communities nationally. Addaction Grantham registered with the CQC on 11 September 2012 for the treatment of disease, disorder or injury and for diagnostic and screening procedures. Addaction Grantham has a registered manager, Andrew Beaver. At the time of our inspection, the service had 397 clients in treatment. CQC had previously inspected the service in December 2013 against the previous outcome measures. The service was meeting all the requirements against the following standards:

• Respecting and involving people who use services
• Care and welfare of people who use services
• Safeguarding people who use services
• Supporting workers
• Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision

Updated 27 February 2017

We do not currently rate independent standalone substance misuse services.

We found the following areas of good practice:

• The provider had low levels of staff sickness and no staff vacancies. Staff had completed mandatory training in safeguarding children and young people and safeguarding adults. The service did not use bank or agency workers.

• Staff received feedback and learning from incidents at weekly case management meetings. Minutes of these meetings were disseminated to all staff by email. Staff said they were supported by their line manager following incidents and were able to access the company employee assistance programme if required.

• Staff received supervision every four to six weeks. Records of supervision were kept in staff files. Staff had received an annual appraisal. Staff said they were able to access specialist training to enable them to develop their skills.

• Clients we spoke with told us that staff were interested in their wellbeing and were respectful, polite and compassionate. We observed staff interacting with clients in a caring manner.

• The service had a key performance indicator (KPI) for waiting times. The time frame from referral to treatment was three weeks and they had a 100% compliance rate for this target in the 12 months preceding this inspection. The service operated extended hours one evening a week to assist clients who worked full time or could not attend day time appointments.

• Clients knew how to complain. Information about making a complaint was displayed in the waiting area, along with a suggestions box. Staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately.

• Staff said they enjoyed their roles and that the team was supportive. We saw positive interactions between staff members. Staff said they all worked well together as a team and there was mutual support for each other. There were opportunities for staff to undertake further training to develop their role.

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

• Interview rooms were fitted with alarms. However, the alarm system did not identify where the alarm had been activated. This meant staff were at increased risk as response times were longer as staff had no indication of where help was required.

• However, staff were unsure of how they would support clients to access independent advocacy services.

• Staff had not updated four out of the five risk assessments within the 12 week timeframe set by the service.

• Staff did not record on the recovery plan or in case notes to show if clients were offered a copy of their recovery plan.