We do not currently rate independent standalone substance misuse services.

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

• The service did not have a permanent female lounge. It was created as and when requested by female clients using retracting partition walls. The lounge reverted back to a mixed gender space when the partition was retracted.

• The service had not provided training to staff to address the inconsistencies in documenting identified risks in the risk review tool. Training was due to be provided to improve the quality of the risk assessment and staff documentation.

• Clients were not fully involved in the planning of their care and care plans were not person-centred.

• The service did not have bespoke care plans they used risk assessment tools to capture care planning. However, the document did not record or address the client’s physical health needs.

However we found the following areas of good practice:

• Since the last inspection, the provider has made adjustments to facilitate same sex accommodation. This inspection found the service was able to distinguish between male and female corridors where bedrooms were situated. New referral forms were in place that considered client needs around same sex accommodation and preference of gender of the allocated worker. Communal toilets were changed to identify whether they were for male or female use.

• At the last inspection clients had little privacy during the admission process due to the proximity of the designated smoking area used by other clients. The service has now installed a smoking shelter away from the building.

• At our last inspection clients’ reported the food was below an acceptable standard. At this inspection clients’ reported the food provided was of a good standard and met their dietary needs.

We do not currently rate independent standalone substance misuse services.

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

• Staffing levels were low at times and there were some vacancies as a result high levels of agency staff were used.

• Risks identified by staff during the assessment of new clients were not accurately reflected in risk assessment plans.

• The service did not operate systems where Male and female only corridors could be facilitated. Due to the nature of the service there were no locks on the toilet doors, and there were no signs on the doors to indicate male or female use.

• Clients reported that the food on offer at the service was below an acceptable standard.

However, we found the following areas of good practice:

• Staff completed e learning safeguarding training, 91% of staff had completed both adults and children safeguarding training. 

• New admissions to the service received good assessment of needs and care plans, there was good on going physical health care checks. Clients were fully involved with the development of the care plan.

• The service worked alongside other specialists and professionals that clients accessed such as midwives. There was good multidisciplinary working with staff both within and external to the service.

• There were good electronic systems in place, which ensured information could be viewed and updated by all staff at CGL. There were systems in place to monitor safety the service had CCTV throughout the building and an intercom system.

• Staff provided a good induction for clients that incorporated their rights, confidentiality the rules and restrictions of the service.

• The service had a range of rooms to support clients’ recovery and comfort whilst using the service.

• Staff ensured there were discharge plans and contingency plans for clients leaving the service and returning to the community.

• Leaflets were available in different languages and there was access to interpreters and signers.

• The service had a commitment to completing audits and addressed any issues raised using action plans.

• The service had good governance structures and systems to monitor all aspects of care and oversee areas for improvement.