Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


Park View Project (Havens), Stoneycroft, Liverpool.

Park View Project (Havens) in Stoneycroft, Liverpool is a Rehabilitation (substance abuse) specialising in the provision of services relating to accommodation for persons who require treatment for substance misuse and substance misuse problems. The last inspection date here was 21st November 2016

Park View Project (Havens) is managed by The Riverside Group Limited who are also responsible for 4 other locations

Contact Details:

    Address:
      Park View Project (Havens)
      30-34 Kremlin Drive
      Stoneycroft
      Liverpool
      L13 7BY
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      01512289167

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: No Rating / Under Appeal / Rating Suspended
Effective: No Rating / Under Appeal / Rating Suspended
Caring: No Rating / Under Appeal / Rating Suspended
Responsive: No Rating / Under Appeal / Rating Suspended
Well-Led: No Rating / Under Appeal / Rating Suspended
Overall: No Rating / Under Appeal / Rating Suspended

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2016-11-21
    Last Published 2016-11-21

Local Authority:

    Liverpool

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

30th September 2016 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made pdf icon

This was an unannounced focused inspection. We went back to check on the progress that the provider told us they had made since our last inspection on 12 July 2016. At that time we issued a warning notice due to a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 regulation 15 (premises and environment).

During this inspection, we assessed how the provider had addressed those issues raised. We found significant improvements had been made and that the provider had met the requirements of the warning notice. We found:

  • The building was clean and well maintained

  • a deep clean of the building had been undertaken

  • an increase in domestic staff had been employed to establish cleaning routines and improve standards

  • cleaning schedules and guidance for clients to follow were available

  • the provider had replaced or refurbished all of the bathrooms and toilets

  • furniture had been replaced and there was more on order.

We had not planned to review the progress that the provider had taken in relation to a requirement notice. However, we saw improvements had been made. Immediate remedial action had been taken and there was an action plan to address a range of fire safety improvements. The provider was due to meet with the landlord to review outstanding actions.

  • An external fire contractor had undertaken a detailed fire risk assessment of the building

  • the provider was addressing the fire assessment

  • all fire doors were closing appropriately

  • a detailed zone map was placed by the fire panel.

12th July 2016 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We do not currently rate independent standalone substance misuse services.

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

  • There was non-compliance with infection prevention requirements and fire prevention requirements.

  • One to one time with a named key worker was not happening as often as required.

  • There was no standalone risk assessment and risk management plan being used.

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

  • There had been recent improvements in the governance arrangements within the service

  • Clients felt fully involved in their treatment plans andthat their care needs were being met in all areas

  • Staff were receiving regular supervision, appraisal and had access to required training. There were the appropriate numbers of staff on duty.

  • The service employed staff and volunteers with lived experience of addiction. This was in line with the recommendations of the Strang report (2012).

 

 

Latest Additions: