We do not currently rate independent standalone substance misuse services.

We found the following areas of good practice

• The building was clean, safe and well maintained. Furniture and décor was appropriate and in good condition. All necessary health and safety checks had been completed and were up to date. Clients had access to a range of facilities and outdoor space. This meant that the environment was safe and comfortable for clients.

• Risk assessments, care needs assessments, care plans and discharge planning were comprehensive, up to date and holistic. There was evidence of collaborative working between staff and clients and information identified within assessments was included in care plans. This meant that staff and clients had a good understanding of client’s needs.

• Care and treatment was delivered in line with best practice. Clients had access to a range of treatments. These included, psychosocial therapies, group work, one to one sessions and sessions with a counsellor.

• There were effective systems and processes in place for staff to follow. This ensured that incidents were reported, safeguarding concerns raised and complaints handled appropriately.

• Clients were positive about the staff and staff attitudes. Staff were considered to be caring and compassionate. Staff displayed a good knowledge of the personal circumstances and needs of clients.

• The senior management team were a visible presence within the service. Senior managers were known to staff and clients. Staff felt confident to raise any concerns and that they would be dealt with professionally.

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

• Not all clients had a copy of the care plan. It was not always possible to identify if clients had been offered a copy of their care plan.

• There was a limited provision of activities at weekends. This meant that clients were not provided with adequate occupation seven days a week.

• Compliance with two mandatory training courses were low. Mental Capacity Act training compliance was 33%. Infectious disease control training compliance was 22%. This meant that staff were not up to date with training needed to deliver care.