The Care Quality Commission
  • Residential substance misuse service

Archived: Cranstoun - Milton House

498-497 Liverpool Road, London, N7 8NS

Provided and run by:
Cranstoun

All Inspections

17 June 2013

During a routine inspection

People with substance misuse issues were receiving appropriate support to organise themselves so they could engage with services in order to address their difficulties and find longer term housing and support.

We found that the provider had taken steps to minimise the risks associated with running a service for people with substance misuse issues and was vigilant. However, two people told us that they felt unsafe at the time of our visit. We saw that the provider was working to address people's concerns and that people had been informed, in general terms, of the actions which were being taken.

People were given full information about their rights and responsibilities at the time of their admission. This included information about restrictions which were in place to support them to stop or reduce their substance misuse.

There were opportunities for people to express their views about the service and their individual support. Two people used the words 'helpful' and 'friendly' to describe staff. One person added that they were 'approachable'.

13 July 2012

During a routine inspection

Two inspectors visited the service over the course of a morning on 13th July 2012. We spoke with people who use the service, with staff and the manager. We also examined a range of records relating to the running of the service including care plans and personnel records.

People who use the service told us that 'I am getting the support I need here' and 'I feel comfortable talking to staff'. We were also told that 'There are enough staff and they can help you with the things you need' and that 'I know how to make a complaint but I've never had to'.

We found that people who use the service were involved in decision making about their care and treatment. People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. We also found that 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.

The provider carried out appropriate pre employment checks on staff, and once in post they received appropriate professional development. The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

We were concerned at the time of our inspection we could not be confident that important events that affect the health, safety and wellbeing of people who use the service had been reported to the Care Quality Commission, so that where needed, appropriate action could be taken.