• Residential substance misuse service

Transforming Choice

Overall: Outstanding read more about inspection ratings

30 Aigburth Drive, Liverpool, Merseyside, L17 4JH (0151) 727 5153

Provided and run by:
Transforming Choice

Important: This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

All Inspections

29 November and 1 December 2021

During a routine inspection

Our rating of this service improved. We rated it as outstanding because:

  • We rated caring and responsive as outstanding due to the excellent person-centred care, full client involvement and staff going the extra mile to support client’s holistic needs during and after the programme.
  • Feedback from clients was exceptionally positive. Staff were highly motivated and inspired to offer care that was kind and promoted people’s dignity.
  • Client’s individual needs and preferences were central to the delivery of tailored services. The service was easy to access.
  • Staff were all committed to involving and empowering clients in all aspects of their recovery. Staff and clients worked together to name, co-produce and develop existing and new services.
  • The service worked proactively to manage people’s addictions and also the wider implications of long-standing addiction including considering the physical health and mental health impact.
  • Staff supported clients fully on discharge according to their individual needs. Staff worked proactively and in partnership to develop alternative and aftercare pathways for clients.
  • The service provided safe care. The premises where clients were seen were safe and clean. The service had enough staff. Staff assessed and managed risk well and followed good practice with respect to safeguarding.
  • 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.
  • The teams included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of clients under their care. Managers ensured that these staff received training, supervision and appraisal. Staff worked well together as a multidisciplinary team and relevant services outside the organisation.
  • The service was well led, and the governance processes ensured that its procedures ran smoothly.

However:

  • Although outcomes for people were good, national guidelines do not recognise a reducing alcohol regime as a fully effective detoxification programme. We have therefore limited the rating of the ‘effective’ key question to good, even though other evidence in the effective key question met the outstanding characteristics. Some research studies using small sample sizes do recognise a reducing alcohol regime as an effective treatment especially for people with complex health and housing needs. Due to the pandemic, the provider had still not been able to have its model clinically reviewed for effectiveness.

16 December 2019

During a routine inspection

We rated it as good because:

  • The service provided safe care. The premises where clients were seen were safe and clean. The service had enough staff. Staff assessed and managed risk well and followed good practice with respect to safeguarding.
  • 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. Staff engaged in clinical audit to evaluate the quality of care they provided.
  • Managers ensured that staff received training, supervision and appraisal. Staff worked well together and with relevant services outside the organisation.
  • Staff treated clients with compassion and kindness, and understood the individual needs of clients. They actively involved clients in decisions and care planning.
  • The service was easy to access. Staff planned and managed discharge well and had alternative pathways for people whose needs it could not meet.
  • The service was well led, and the governance processes ensured that its procedures ran smoothly.

However:

  • Guidelines published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and Public Health England do not report on the effectiveness of detoxification programmes that use alcohol rather than prescribed medication to manage withdrawal.
  • Staff monitored clients for symptoms of alcohol withdrawal, but this was not documented using a recognised alcohol-withdrawal tool.

2 & 3 November 2016

During a routine inspection

We do not currently rate independent standalone substance misuse services.

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

  • Staff were not recording the administration of a high-dose vitamin injection, individual sessions with the academic psychologist and some health and safety checks.

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

  • Clients were truly respected and valued as individuals. Staff treated clients with dignity, respect and compassion. Clients were empowered as partners in their care and actively involved in service development.
  • The service accepted vulnerable people who might be excluded from other residential treatment programmes. Staff planned for discharge in the first few weeks of clients’ stay (including supporting clients to find appropriate accommodation). Staff gave clients accessible information about the service and how to complain.
  • Clients completed their own recovery-oriented care plans. Clients were involved in reviewing the effectiveness of their own treatment. Staff considered the Mental Capacity Act when working with clients who were intoxicated. There were measures in place to ensure that clients gave informed consent to admission.
  • The building was generally warm, pleasant, clean and tidy. There were enough staff to keep people safe. Care records included a comprehensive risk assessment. There was clear guidance for staff to follow if they had concerns about clients’ safety.
  • Managers and staff were passionate about working with vulnerable people, and believed in the potential for recovery. There was a board assurance framework, risk register and plan to improve clinical governance. Staff were engaged and involved in service development. The service reported on outcomes for each individual client.