We do not currently rate independent standalone substance misuse services.

We found the following areas of good practice:

• The building was clean, well equipped and safely maintained. Clients took part in a cleaning rota. Staff completed building safety assessments and regularly inspected equipment and facilities.

• The building offered appropriate facilities including communal areas, lounges, group rooms, kitchen and laundry facilities and access to outdoor space. Clients told us the building had a homely feel and that the environment was welcoming.

• Staff were supported to deliver care. Compliance with mandatory training was high. There was access to additional specialised training. Staff received regular clinical and managerial supervision and an annual appraisal.

• Clients received a comprehensive assessment on admission. They were involved in the development of their care plans and decisions about their treatment. Care plans were recovery focused and reflected the clients goals and objectives.

• Recovery was embedded in the delivery and culture of the service. Clients played an active role in their care and were supported to develop recovery capital. This included the development of life and social skills as well as engagement with other support services.

• Care and treatment was underpinned by best practice. Peer mentors were a visible presence in the service. Clients had access to psychological therapies, group sessions and mutual aid groups.

• Clients we spoke to were positive about the service they received. They spoke highly of the staff that were treating them. Clients felt the service was supportive and recovery focused. They were optimistic about the treatment they were receiving.

• There were clear processes for access and discharge from the service. The service worked with referral agencies to ensure appropriate admissions. Clients had discharge plans and were linked in with support services in the community.

• The service had a clear set of vision and values. Staff were aware of these and reflected them in their daily practice.

• Staff morale was positive. Staff felt supported by senior management within the service and the provider organisation. Senior managers were visible to staff and were considered approachable and open. There were low absence rates and an open and honest culture.

• There was a governance structure to support the delivery of care. The service monitored performance through the national drug treatment monitoring system. Senior managers carried out regular quality checks at the service.

We spoke with eight people who used the service, most of whom told us they were very satisfied with the support they received. Comments included, “The service provides me with the skills to live life as an upstanding and law abiding member of the community, giving back rather than taking. It also provides me with opportunities to progress in education and paid work” and “I am totally happy with the service and wouldn’t change a thing, as I am definitely thinking more positively”.

People told us they felt staff treated them with respect. We saw evidence people were involved in developing and agreeing their own care plan. We found people were informed of the ‘house rules’ for the service before they decided to take up a place.

We reviewed the care records for four people who used the service. We found records contained information about the support people felt they needed in relation to their substance misuse and wider daily living tasks.

We found evidence there were systems in place to ensure people received safe and coordinated care where other services were involved and when people were discharged from the project.

We found the premises were safe and secure and had been maintained to a reasonable standard. All the people we spoke with told us they felt safe and comfortable within the project.

We found suitable arrangements were in place to manage an effective process for identifying, receiving and handling complaints for people who used the service.

We spoke with three people who used the service who told us they were very happy with the support they received. All people spoken with told us they had received information about the 'house rules' before they were admitted. We found evidence that staff sought and recorded consent from people to the rehabilitation programme delivered by the service.

With permission we reviewed the care records of people who used the service and found that they contained information about the support the person felt they needed in relation to their substance misuse and wider daily living tasks.

People told us they received appropriate support to take their prescribed medication although we found that record keeping relating to medication could be improved.

We spoke with four members of staff who told us they felt well supported and confident in carrying out their responsibilities. We saw evidence that staff were appropriately qualified and provided with training relevant to their role.

We found that there were effective systems in place for the completion and storage of records relating to the care of people using the service and the maintenance of the premises.

People told us, "They sent information and the programme was explained to me" and "They came to see me and told me what they did and went through everything with me when I arrived. I knew what I was letting myself in for". People were given sufficient information to enter this six month program of rehabilitation.

People said, "The programme is working very well for me", "I think I will succeed this time" and "The program helped me 100%. It gave me a fresh start and it taught me coping skills". People were very confident the rehabilitation programme was working and that they would be successful in returning to a useful life.

People told us, "We set targets or goals and write them down to record my progress", "They sit down with me and we write down what I need. I had my say in what help I needed" and "I get all the help and support I need to remain independent. The support and guidance is always there and it has changed my life". People were able to sit and discuss issues with staff to help formulate plans of care to help record their progress on the programme.

People said, "My key worker is there to help me as a safety net should I have any problems", "I feel safe enough here. There are the odd incidents. I have never felt threatened by anybody" and "I feel safe here. If I had any concerns I could talk to the manager. When I need staff they have been there". People felt safe and able to voice any concerns they had at this care service.

People were very complimentary about staff who were employed at the care service and thought they had the knowledge and experience to look after them.

People thought they were able to have a say in how the home was run. They attended group and solo meetings to discuss any changes they thought were needed. People said staff responded to their changing needs and aspirations.

People commented in completed survey forms, "Since being here my life has changed beyond belief. I will always be grateful to the group facilitators and management for the amazing job they do. All the staff here are truly blessed”, “I have been shown a new way of life. I have had my ups and downs and did not think I would complete the course. Thanks to the staff and peer group for the help and support I did. My poor behaviours have been replaced, one by one, with qualities which will help my recovery and in society”, “They have given me the foundation of what my life is to become and I am eternally grateful”, “They have taught me how to live, forgive and be happy for once” and “I am very satisfied with the dedication of staff, their experience and knowledge of recovery and the way they inspired me with hope”. People who went through the programme felt it had worked for them and they had the skills to cope with day to day life in the community.