Up to date, individual care plans were in place for people who used the service which addressed their care and support needs and protected them from risks. One person we spoke with said, "I’ve been given all the help I need and staff involved me fully in deciding my programme of support.”

The service worked in partnership with other providers to ensure people's health, safety and welfare needs were met. Information about people who used the service was obtained and shared appropriately.

People were supported in premises and an environment that was suitably designed and adequately maintained to meet their rehabilitation needs. One person told us, “My room is lovely.”

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place and people were supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

People’s personal records, staff records and other records relevant to the management of the services were, in most respects, up to date, accurate and fit for purpose.

At the time of our inspection the provider did not have a registered manager in post.

The people using the service told us they were given helpful information when they arrived at the service so that they could make informed choices about the detoxification programme. One person said they were given “superb information”, the programme was fully explained to them and they understood exactly what it would involve.

The people we spoke with said that staff were always available if they had any concerns or worries. There was a daily 'check in' session where they were given the opportunity to tell staff how they were feeling and to raise any issues about their treatment and the running of the service.

People told us they liked the service, felt safe there and received good support from the staff, who treated with them dignity and respect. One person said, “The staff are absolutely wonderful. It has been such an inspiration coming in here”.

We spoke to one of the local authority commissioners of the service. They told us that they had no concerns about the service and it did comparatively well in retaining people in the detoxification programme.

Although people told us they were satisfied with their care, we found other evidence that people were not always protected against the risks of receiving inappropriate or unsafe care and support.

During our visit we spoke with some of the people who were staying at the home. They told us that they were very happy with the service provided and received excellent care and treatment. One person said that the staff “always go the extra mile”. Another said that there was “not a bad word to say about the service”. People felt that staff were well trained and knowledgeable and always approachable if they had any questions or concerns.

We rated Brook Drive as good because:

• The service supported clients with complex needs whilst they undertook a programme of detoxification from drugs and alcohol. This treatment was provided in line with best practice and national guidance.
• The service worked collaboratively with a GP service and a mental health trust to ensure the clients had access to staff with the necessary clinical expertise to meet their needs. The service also employed multi-disciplinary staff in sufficient numbers to support the people using the service. Staff worked together well to share information and meet the individual needs of each clients.
• Staff had access to a range of training to ensure they had the skills to deliver treatment.
• The environment was designed to keep clients safe. People with the most complex needs had bedrooms nearest to the staff office. A separate floor was available for female clients with access to a female only lounge.
• Potential clients were assessed very thoroughly and there was clarity about when the service could not meet their needs. Staff were able to develop detailed care plans and risk assessments.
• Staff knew about the clients’ physical and mental health care needs and were able to monitor them closely and escalate concerns if the client was deteriorating.
• Staff understood and discharged their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
• Staff treated clients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity and understood their individual needs. They actively involved clients in care decisions.
• The service managed beds well so that a bed was always available to a person who would benefit from admission. Staff ensured that discharge plans were in place before a client was admitted to the service. The service worked well with other agencies to plan each person’s discharge.

However:

• Whilst staff had access to supervision this did not always take place regularly.

• Staff team meetings did not take place regularly and did not routinely discuss learning from incidents and complaints.

• There was no system in place to ensure concerns raised at the client meeting were addressed.

• Staff had not safely managed controlled stationery stocks such as FP10 prescription pads. However, staff ensured this was rectified during the inspection.