Stockton Recovery Service

We rated Stockton Recovery Service as good because:

• The service was well led by a strong, cohesive, enthusiastic management team with a good mix of skills, experience and knowledge who were working hard to further improve services and engagement with clients and their recovery. They had robust systems to ensure incidents were investigated and lessons learned were discussed amongst staff and changes implemented. Communication within the service and to and from the senior management at provider level was good. It was supported locally by a well-planned set of meetings to ensure information was shared quickly ensuring staff were well informed of key risks and developments.

• Staff described a supportive team culture and were happy to raise concerns openly. Morale was good and staff were proud of their work and the difference it made to people’s lives. Staff were kind, caring and recovery focused. They engaged well with clients and where appropriate their families and carers. Staff understood and addressed specific needs regarding equality, diversity and human rights.
• Clients consistently praised the staff and service. They all knew the name of their recovery worker, who they were in regular contact with. They said they felt safe, were made aware of risks and how to minimise these and felt fully involved in their treatment. If they had issues they were happy to raise these directly and were confident they would be resolved. The service provided and had access to a range of interventions to support clients, carers and families.
• Locally engagement was good, with commissioner’s, other services such as primary care, community mental health teams, local authority safeguarding teams, police, probation and prison services as well as third sector organisations.

However:

• There were areas of improvement required to manage safety in the service. Not all clients had a risk management plan which addressed every client risk identified. Therefore, it was not clear how staff managed all identified risks effectively. Not all staff had received the required mandatory training to ensure they could respond to physical health emergencies, although training was scheduled to be completed by February 2019.
• Staff had not been fully appraised for the previous 12 months at the time of our inspection as a new, improved system was being introduced. The new system was planned to be piloted in January 2019 and fully introduced in March 2019.
• Staff did not consistently record discharge plans in client records although there was good evidence during our inspection of focus on client progress and discharge.