Brent Teaching Primary Care Trust: Substance misuse service review 2006/2007: Commissioning and harm reduction
Our review of substance misuse services was carried out in partnership with the National Treatment Agency. It looked at the way in which local drugs partnership or equivalent structure, e.g Drug Action Teams (DAT) provide substance misuse services to meet the needs of their local population. Two related substance misuse themes were selected for review in 2007/2008:
Substance misuse service review 2006/2007: Commissioning and harm reduction
This review was undertaken by the Healthcare Commission and National Treatment Agency.
Rating: Excellent
The performance of this organisation consistently meets and goes beyond minimum requirements and reasonable expectations of people who use substance misuse services, their carers and the public. A leader in the provision of substance misuse services.
| Similar Trusts | Rating |
|---|---|
| 36.8% | Excellent |
| 40.8% | Good |
| 22.4% | Fair |
| 0.0% | Weak |
Results this trust
The unit of assessment was the local drugs partnership or equivalent structure, e.g. DAT, which included primary care trusts as one of the members of the partnership.
As key members of local drug partnerships, PCTS have been given the same score as the local drug partnership which they were a member of. If the PCT was a member of more than one local drug partnership, the PCT score is the mean of all the partnership scores within which it operates.
We measured how well Brent Teaching Primary Care Trust performed in the following areas:
| Theme | Criteria | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Commissioning The following criteria were developed to assess local drug treatment systems' performance on commissioning and systems management. | Local commissioning partnerships have formal strategic partnerships with key stakeholders including health, social care, housing and employment services, drug treatment providers, and local drug user and carers | Excellent |
| There is a shared understanding of the local need for drug treatment, based upon annual needs assessment reports inline with a nationally agreed methodology.This methodology requires the needs assessment to profile the diversity of local need for drug treatment, including rates of morbidity and mortality (e.g. infection with blood borne viruses), the degree of treatment saturation or penetration, and impact of treatment on individual health, public health and offending. | Good | |
| Local commissioners for drug treatment develop local drug treatment system plans annually in line with the Models of care update 2006 with focus on reducing harm to individuals and communities, improving clients’ journeys through treatment, predicting client flow through local systems and improving the effectiveness of local drug systems. | Good | |
| Local commissioners demonstrate best practice in handling public money, contracting with providers and monitoring service level agreements. | Excellent | |
| Local commissioning partnerships performance manage local systems of drug treatment by using data and key performance indicators in partnership with local strategic partners and plans. | Excellent | |
| Local commissioning partnerships are 'fit for purpose', have involvement from key stakeholders at an appropriate level of seniority and ensure commissioners are competent against national quality standards and other relevant professional frameworks. | Fair | |
| Harm reduction The following criteria were developed to assess local drug treatment systems performance on the provision of harm reduction services. | Harm Reduction is embedded in the whole system | Excellent |
| Service users have prompt and flexible access to needle exchange services, vaccination, testing & treatment for BBV | Excellent | |
| Action is taken to reduce the number of drug related deaths | Excellent | |
| Staff are competent to deliver effective harm reduction services | Excellent |
