Archived: Clarence Park Lodge

We heard that the support provided was individualised to meet people's needs. We were told when a change in their programme was needed that this was discussed and agreed between the person and the counsellor. One person told us 'I talk to my counsellor and we plan what I need to do. They always talk to me about my support.'

We were told that the counsellors supported and enabled people to work toward and maintain abstinence. We heard that people felt comfortable with the counsellors. One person told us 'my counsellor is very good I feel they know me.'

There were safe and effective recruitment and selection processes in place. Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work which ensured people were protected from the risks of being cared for by unsuitable staff.

People were made aware of the complaints system. People's complaints were fully investigated and resolved to their satisfaction.

During our visit we found people were not protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had not been fully implemented.

We spoke to people about how they felt they were involved in the running of the home. People told us that secondary care was about the development of trust. They told us the house was staffed during the day but not at night and weekends. This meant they took responsibility for themselves and their safety within the house. We were told there were daily house meetings when they would discuss any issues and deal with them.

We were told by people who used the service that care planning was centred on the person's needs and agreed with them. They told us regular reviews were carried out with the individual.

Staff confirmed they were given the opportunity to develop their professional skills and received appropriate support from the provider to do so.

The provider had quality assurance systems in place that ensured people were safe and changes could be identified to improve the service provided.