Via - Greenwich

This was the first time we had inspected this service. We rated it as good because:

• Staff treated clients with compassion and kindness. They understood the individual needs of clients and supported clients to understand and manage their care and treatment. Staff involved clients in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided.
• Staff developed holistic, recovery-oriented care plans informed by a comprehensive assessment. They provided a range of treatments suitable to the needs of the clients and in line with national guidance about best practice. Staff engaged in clinical audit to evaluate the quality of care they provided.
• Staff assessed and managed risks to clients and themselves well. They responded promptly to sudden deterioration in clients’ physical and mental health. Staff made clients aware of harm minimisation and the risks of continued substance misuse.
• All premises where clients received care were safe, clean, well equipped, well furnished, and well maintained.
• The teams had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of clients under their care. Staff worked well together as a multidisciplinary team and relevant services outside of the organisation.
• Most staff felt respected, supported and valued. They reported that the service promoted equality and diversity in its day-to-day work and in providing opportunities for career progression. They felt able to raise concerns without fear of retribution.
• The service managed client safety incidents well. Staff recognised incidents and reported them appropriately. Managers investigated incidents and shared lessons learned with the whole team.
• Most staff understood how to protect clients from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse, and they knew how to apply it.

However:

• Medicines were not always stored in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.
• Whilst leaders were visible and approachable, not all staff felt their concerns were listened to.
• Face to face training was not always completed by staff, for example, de-escalation skills and motivational interviewing skills, although future training dates were planned.
• Debrief sessions were not always offered to staff after an incident occurred.
• Whilst regular governance meetings occurred, some agenda points were not able to be discussed each month due to time management of the meeting, for example, audit results, the risk register and equality and diversity matters.
• The service had expanded to take on more clients. However, the building capabilities remained the same. This meant there was not always room to see clients in interview rooms, and staff desk space had been reduced.