Implementation of the Quality Principles: What we found

Implementation of the Quality Principles: What we found Sharon Robertson Project Lead, Care Inspectorate Mike Harkin Depute Lead, Care Inspectorate

Timely access to treatment Most people were seen within the three-week target Innovative approaches was helping to improve waiting times and increase early/timely access Barriers included rural geography, lack of staff capacity due to vacancies, sickness and holidays Delays also happened where people seeking treatment did not keep appointments Challenges in evidencing and tracking recovery journeys as information systems did not readily support data sharing Diversity of outcome tools and capturing outcomes at partnership level - potential benefit of ROW and DAISy.

Evidence-informed treatment, care and support Single point of access models and multi-agency hubs provided prompt, streamlined approach Proactive and assertive outreach approaches to early support Moving-on services provided focused support beyond treatment Range of harm reduction interventions and treatments however delays accessing specialised psychological therapies, rehabilitation and detoxification services Poor quality premises/surroundings in some services made people feel undervalued Access to rooms and meeting spaces a significant challenge

Recovery focused philosophy Evidence of embedding a recovery philosophy (staff recruitment, workforce development, policy/practice development, commissioning); but further work needed to strengthen and embed approach into wider workforce practices and culture Growth of peer mentors, SMART recovery groups, recovery cafés but still early stage of development in more rural and remote areas Positive examples of ADPs using self-directed support towards achievement of personal outcomes Time and capacity restraints inhibited staffs ability to deliver and use psychological interventions Generic staff did not always feel sufficiently well trained to deliver and provide psychosocial, trauma informed support

Strength-based assessments Growing commitment towards a strengths-based approach however greater focus/identification of individual’s recovery capital and strengths Involving people more fully in their assessment Regular review of risk management plans to fully reflect current circumstances Simultaneous use of outcome tools by services resulting in duplication and inputting information into multiple recording systems/databases Shared-care approach between statutory and third sector partners there was greater cohesiveness and improved coordination of services More work needed to ensure it was made clear to people when information may be shared without their permission

Person-centred recovery plans Most people had a recovery plan in place that was person-centred, relevant and up to date Most recovery plans identified community-based services to support people’s progress and address other areas in their life Further work was needed to support staff to improve the quality, uniformity and consistency of recovery plans The majority of people had not been offered a copy of their recovery plan Some people experienced having more than one plan when receiving support from more than one service – greater cohesion/joined up working Recovery plans were not routinely shared with services that were actively supporting people in their recovery progress, even though they played an important role within the plan

Reviewing recovery plans In two-thirds of cases, recovery plans were regularly reviewed however some staff and individuals were unclear of expectations about the frequency of reviews Most people were meaningfully involved in the review of their recovery plan Over half of reviews included an evaluation of the effectiveness of current treatment or interventions Shared-care reviews with the individual and multi-agency staff team to jointly review and update progress, but not standard practice across all ADPs and services The majority of reviews helpfully supported people to address other areas of their life identified from their assessment and recovery plan

Involving individuals in the on-going evaluation of delivery of services Over two-thirds of cases were rated good or above at involving and taking account of individuals’, families’ and carers’ views about how services were delivered However, robust mechanisms to formally capture, and evaluate, the views of people on the impact of service delivery and quality were absent in some ADP areas In one-third of records read, practice was either weak or unsatisfactory in evidencing how well people were supported to understand and exercise their rights or how to make a complaint There was very little evidence that staff were giving people with whom they were working information about independent advocacy

Family inclusive practice People were actively helped and encouraged to involve families and others in their recovery Some ADPs embedded a whole-family approach within key processes (e.g. Strengthening Families programmes) The responsiveness of services to the needs/wellbeing of dependent children was good overall, however Better guidance in relation to information sharing and the named person role for staff working within adult services to fully inform the risk assessment process Greater awareness of the needs of family members and role support services outside treatment services can offer Family-inclusive practice could be more actively promoted within the prison population

Embedding the Quality Principles – contributing factors Positive shift towards a recovery philosophy in planning, commissioning and delivery of services Quality Principles are being embedded and beginning to show some positive impact in person-centred treatment, care and support Strong collaboration between statutory services and third sector is leading to greater innovative and person-centred service models Integration of ROSC beyond core alcohol and drug treatment services

Embedding the Quality Principles – contributing factors Systematic approach needed to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of the use of the Quality Principles for people who use services, their families and communities Financial challenges, impact on commissioning and resourcing services presented significant challenges in recruitment, planning and delivering continuity of services Stigma experienced by people using alcohol and drug services from staff across a range of services Role of ADPs in supporting necessary culture change and conditions to embed a recovery philosophy