One person who used the service told us “I can speak to anyone any time I want to. If I am worried about something there is always someone here to help”. Another person told us “Everything is done here with you in mind. It’s all about my recovery”.

Goals identified in care plans provided the person who used the service with clear actions and expected outcomes in relation to how they would achieve that goal. Care plans also included individual risk assessments with an associated risk management plan.

We observed that there were sufficient staff throughout our visit to run the treatment programme and support people with other needs, for example, visiting the doctor. One member of staff that we spoke with told us “There are times when it can be a bit hectic but generally staffing is okay. In the ideal world we would always want more staff”.

The service employed a Site Estate and Maintenance manager. We saw that maintenance issues could be reported immediately to them. We saw that all issues were recorded on a daily basis. Urgent issues had been rectified as soon as possible.

We saw that the service had regularly gained the views and experiences of people who used the service in the way the service was provided and delivered. Comments included “All staff in all capacities have treated me over and above their means”. And “Staff are always supportive and understanding”.

The home provides a specialist service in a homely environment for up to 31 men. The people were appreciative of the support they received at the home. People told us they had been treated well by the staff. One person said that "The staff are supportive and good".

We observed that care and support was delivered with warmth, kindness and dedication. The relationship between the staff and the people who lived there was good and personal support was provided in a way that promoted and protected people's privacy and dignity. We found that people’s concerns were listened to, and action was taken to address any issues identified.

The arrangements for keeping the home clean and tidy were satisfactory. The standard of the accommodation, décor and furniture and fittings were good and provided a clean and comfortable place to live.

Staff received ongoing training, and had regular supervision and appraisals.

Comments seen on completed feedback forms included “When I had my assessment with Ken (the manager), pretty much everything was explained to me in a friendly and comfortable manner which without doubt gave me reassurance of coming to Kenward House and starting the programme”, “All in all I am very happy with the Kenward Trust programme as it all means well, it inspired me to stay the full 24 weeks,” and “I found it hard but coped”.

We do not currently rate independent standalone substance misuse services.

We found the following areas of good practice:

• Medication was stored in boxes within the medicine cabinet according to the room number of the person who used the service. This corresponded with medication administration record (MAR) charts.

• All medication stock was checked daily by night duty staff who had all been trained to level two medicines management.

• Risk assessments were carried out on admission and regularly reviewed. The risk assessments we saw were well written and included completed unexpected treatment exit/discharge plans.

• Recovery plans were well written, up to date and inclusive. They included strengths and goals and were regularly reviewed.

• Records showed all staff received line management supervision monthly and an external supervisor came to the service every two weeks to provide group clinical supervision to the counselling staff.

• We saw multiple examples of positive and appropriate attitudes by staff towards the people who used the service during the inspection.

• Staff were very person centred and we saw examples of the staff treating the people who used the service as individuals both in person and within care plans and groups.
• Service user forums were held regularly and minutes were taken. Action plans from each forum were developed detailing actions and when achieved. The minutes were posted to all the people who took part.

• There was a clear and detailed eligibility criteria that was explained fully on application and everyone who used the service completed a pre-admission assessment form. Staff used this information to evaluate risk and need in order to offer a personalised programme if suitable.

• There were robust care pathways in order to move people on from treatment, this included supported living and rental properties owned by Kenward Trust.

• There was a great commitment towards continual improvement and innovation.

• The service was very responsive to feedback from people who used the service, staff and external agencies.

• The service had been proactive in capturing and responding to concerns and complaints from people who used the service.

• There was clear learning from incidents with action logs that were produced with timescales and progress reports.

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

• Health screenings were not done on site, all people who used the service were referred to the local GP within 48 hours of admission. There was no evidence in care plans of GP liaison with staff regarding the health of a person who used the service.

• Everyone who used the service was asked to self-report on admission regarding their blood borne virus status. However, we could find no evidence of blood tests being taken if people were unsure of their status.