We do not currently rate independent standalone substance misuse services.

We found the following areas of good practice:

• The environment was clean and well maintained. Staff were on site 24 hours a day and there were enough staff to safely carry out their role. There was an up to date risk assessment in all care records and staff were aware of and trained in safeguarding procedures. Staff had completed mandatory training to the required level.

• The service had developed a programme to overcome barriers around addiction within minority communities. All clients had a comprehensive and holistic assessment and a recovery care plan. There were good physical health checks completed by the GP prior to admission and evidence of ongoing support during the clients admission. Staff received supervision four to six weekly as per the supervision policy.

• All clients told us that staff were kind and caring and supported them 100%. We observed staff interacting with clients throughout our inspection and found them to be compassionate and genuine in their approach to the clients. Clients were actively involved in their care and were able to give feedback about the service in client meetings.

• The therapeutic programme was evidence based and structured and was facilitated by suitably qualified staff. Each week there were many activities that clients could take part in including a group trips out to the local community. On the week of our inspection, this included a trip to see a play. Discharge planning began on admission, the service worked well with the client, and their referrer to ensure everything was in place for the client to move on in a supported way. There were bedrooms and a bathroom on the ground floor which could be used by someone with mobility issues.

• The team spoke highly of the senior managers and felt that they were visible within the service. Staff felt they could approach their managers with any issues and felt they would be dealt with in a fair way. Morale was high in the team and staff demonstrated they were passionate and committed to working with the client group. Managers completed regular audits to ensure the safe and efficient running of the service was maintained. Sickness rates were low at below one percent.

However, we also found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

• Although staff showed a good understanding of the need to be open and honest when something went wrong, there was no policy which directly related to duty of candour and this would make it difficult to ensure all staff were taking the same approach if an incident of this level did occur.

We visited Rosemary Court and Fulstone House on 2 January 2014. The service was filled to capacity at the time of the visit, with eight people currently residing there and undertaking the primary stage recovery programme.

We saw consent was obtained where required and signed consent forms and agreements were held within service user files.

We looked at a sample of support plans and these contained relevant health and personal information and were reviewed and updated on a regular basis. Communication between staff members was effective and documents were clear and up to date.

We spoke with all eight people who were currently using the service. One person said, “I feel 100% supported, they have given me the right advice. It’s the best thing I have ever done”. Another person told us, “I think it has saved my life”.

There was evidence of good partnership working with other agencies and services. Information was shared appropriately and correspondence to and from other agencies was held securely in people's files.

Staff were well supported with regular supervisions, staff meetings and informal support. Mandatory training was undertaken on induction and refreshed on a regular basis and further training was on-going.

There was a complaints procedure and regular audits were carried out within the service. Feedback from people who used the service was sought in a number of ways. The results were used to inform continual improvement to the service.

We completed an unannounced inspection at Rosemary Court on the 1 October 2012. As part of this inspection we looked at concerns that had been identified at the last inspection visit in November 2011.

During our inspection visit we spoke with four people who were currently using the service of Rosemary Court, four people who had used the service, a volunteer and one member of staff.

Each person living at Rosemary Court had their own bedroom and all people were expected to take part in communal mealtimes and to share ‘therapeutic duties’ as part of their conditions of their tenancy.

As part of the conditions of their stay at Rosemary Court people were expected to attend therapy sessions at the nearby Fulstone House. Both services are owned by Acorn Treatment and Housing Projects. People stayed at Rosemary court for approximately 8 to 10 weeks before moving out to ‘secondary housing’ also owned by Acorn Treatment and Housing Project and were supported under the Supporting People Initiative.

The people we spoke with were complimentary about the service provided. They told us that their privacy and dignity was respected and they were happy with the standard of accommodation. People told us they felt fully supported by staff. One person said “There is always somebody there for you.” Another person said “Its all for the greater good.”

We saw some comments from people using the service on completed ‘client feedback’ questionnaires. Some of the comments included: ‘everyone is treated equally,’ ‘I was informed about my treatment and it fulfilled my expectations’ and ‘very commendable.’

The member of staff spoken with told us that people’s privacy and dignity was respected and we were told there was a lot of ongoing support for people and it was all suited to people’s individual needs.

We undertook this inspection following information of concern we received about the service in relation to safeguarding arrangements, concerns about training, supervision and the recruitment of staff.

Each person living at Rosemary Court had their own bedroom and all people were expected to take part in communal mealtimes and to share "therapeutic duties" as part of the conditions of their tenancy.

As part of the conditions of their stay at Rosemary Court, people were expected to attend therapy sessions at Fulstone House. Both services are owned by Acorn Treatment and Housing Projects. People stayed at Rosemary Court for up to 8 weeks before moving out to "secondary housing" also owned by Acorn Treatment and Housing Projects and were supported under the Supporting People Initiative.

People told us that when they finished their treatment a 'Graduation Ceremony' was held to which family and friends were invited to share their success. People told us they were looking forward to their graduation ceremony.

People who had used and completed treatment at Rosemary Court said, “It’s an achievement it gives you hope.”

One person said the service had enabled them to get on with their life and said, “The treatment gives you the driving lesson to go out and start to drive.”

Another person said, “I have massive gratitude for this place.”

People told us they felt safe living at Rosemary Court and they knew how to make a complaint. People told us they were confident that their complaint would be addressed.

People told us that they had good support from staff and that staff were very approachable and they felt listened to.

One person described other people who used the service as being very supportive and said, “They know what you are going through because they’ve been there or they are also going through it.”

Other comments from people who used the service included,

“It’s a good place.”

“I can’t fault it, the accommodation it lovely, clean and comfortable.”

“I would definitely recommend this service to other people.”