CGL New Directions Mansfield

We rated CGL New Directions Mansfield as good because:

• Services provided safe care and treatment. There were enough staff, who knew clients and received training to keep them safe from avoidable harm. Staff assessed and managed risk well and followed good practice with respect to safeguarding.

• Services provided a range of treatments suitable to the needs of the clients. This included harm reduction, substitute prescribing, blood borne testing and detoxification. Staff engaged in clinical audit to evaluate the quality of care they provided.

• Teams included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of the clients. Managers ensured that these staff received training and supervision. Staff worked well together as a multi-disciplinary team and with relevant services outside the organisation.

• Staff treated clients with compassion and kindness and understood the individual needs of clients. Staff actively involved clients in care decisions and designing the service.

• Services were easy to access. Staff assessed and treated people who required urgent care promptly and those who did not require urgent care did not wait too long to start treatment. The service did not exclude people who would have benefitted from care.

• Services were well led, and the governance processes ensured that procedures relating to the work of the service ran smoothly.

However;

• When starting treatment, staff requested summaries from GP’s about a client’s health and prescribed medicines. For services users accessing treatment over time, we did not see processes in place to ensure staff routinely requested updates of this information.

• Recovery plans staff created with clients had a greater focus on the management of risk. Plans were often descriptive of staff interventions rather than focussing on the clients’ strengths and personal goals for recovery. Once completed, staff did not routinely share plans with clients.
• The provider was making organisational changes to the way staff work performance was appraised. As a result of this, local appraisal compliance rates were low.