We do not currently rate independent standalone substance misuse services.

We found the following areas of good practice:

• Young people using the service were very positive regarding staff approachability and support. Some young people linked their reduction in substance misuse directly to the help staff had provided.

• The service was proactive in providing positive outreach to the local community including schools, colleges, and youth clubs, to meet the needs of the local population.

• We received very positive feedback from the school leads, and a service commissioner about the service’s reliability, flexibility and responsive and proactive approach.

• Staff from the service worked effectively and productively with a range of other agencies and attended relevant boards including the local safeguarding children board, multi agency safeguarding hub, and multi-agency risk assessment conference.

• Staff provided training and workshops in the local community and attended school and fresher fairs, and parents evenings, to promote the service.

• We saw evidence that further engagement was sought with local primary health care services and minority communities.

• Feedback was sought from young people to look at ways in which the service might improve.

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

• Staff did not have sufficient training in their work with young people with challenging behaviour and in the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

• There was some variation in the quality of recording of risk assessments, management plans, interventions, and re-engagement support provided to young people.

• Not all young people were offered a copy of their care plan, including a plan for unexpected treatment exit to ensure their safety as far as possible.

• Not all young people’s records were dated. Mental capacity assessments were not sufficiently detailed and not reviewed on a regular basis.

We spoke with three people who were using the service, with five staff members and the acting manager. We also looked at a range of records relating to the running of the service, including four personnel files and six personal files of adults and young people using the service.

We found that people’s views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their treatment and that people experienced treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

People who use 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. People were also protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed.

Staff were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard, and the provider had an effective system in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

People who used the service received appropriate care and support that met their individual needs and were treated with dignity and respect. One person who used the service told us “they have given me self-confidence and a sense of purpose to my life”.

There were processes in place to protect people using services from harm. Staff were trained to recognise the signs of abuse and to report concerns in accordance with the service’s procedures.

We found people were not protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had not been followed in relation to the disposal of clinical waste and staff had not received infection control training.

People were cared for and supported by suitably skilled and experienced staff.

Records kept were fit for purpose and held securely.

People told us that they were very happy with the service and that they felt supported and fully involved. They had their dignity and independence respected.

People told us the support workers were "amazing" and had really helped them. People received appropriate care and support that met their individual needs.

There were processes in place to protect people using services from harm. Support workers were trained to recognise the signs of abuse and to report concerns accordingly.

People were cared for and supported by suitably qualified and skilled staff. Support workers were trained, supervised and appraised appropriately.

There were systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service .There was an effective complaints system available. Comments and complaints people made were responded to appropriately.