During our inspection we spoke with four men who using the service they told us they felt respected by the staff and volunteers working at U turn Recovery Project.

People told us they felt supported with their recovery by staff. People said staff listened to their needs and supported them to make agreed changes.

One person told us, "Staff have been very supportive to me since I came here, they even support my relatives". Another person told us, "They saved my life".

People were supported with their care needs appropriately by staff, one person said, "They discussed the treatment plan with me and the support that was available for me".

Safeguards were in place to reduce the risk of abuse, staff and people were aware and understood the provider’s safeguarding policy.

They were recruitment processes in place and associated information regarding the recruitment process was found on the two staff records reviewed.

Systems were in place to make a complaint and people told us they felt able to raise their concerns or a complaint with the staff.

We rated U Turn recovery Project as requires improvement because:

• The provider did not have robust systems in place to make improvements. At the last inspection in July 2017, we told the provider that it must have a registered manager in day-to-day control of the service and that it must complete pre-employment checks, such as references and checks by the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), for all new and existing staff. At this inspection, we found that employees all had pre-employment checks but the service still did not have a registered manager in post. In addition, the provider had failed to notify CQC of incidents it is required to and failed to provide a report detailing how it would make the improvements identified at the previous inspection. We also told the provider it should ensure that staff supervision sessions were formally documented. The service had failed to do this.
• The service did not have sufficient systems in place to ensure it delivered person-centred care. It imposed a wide range of blanket restrictions, which were applied to all clients regardless of their individual risks or needs. Restrictions included clients not being able to leave the premises on their own or have access to their own money. The service did not have sufficient safeguards in place to check whether these restrictions were necessary and proportionate for individual clients, and that they were imposed with their full consent. The service did not have systems in place to monitor the quality of the services it provided and ensure these were in line with good practice models of substance misuse services delivery.
• The service did not provide supervision or appraisal to staff. This meant the service did not have formal systems for assessing the performance and competency of staff or to ensure that staff were appropriately supported.
• Medicines audits had been insufficient to identify problems, such as the quantities of medicines held by the service not matching the amount of medicines stated on the medicines administration charts.
• The service relied on the good will of staff to work additional hours to ensure that the service was provided safely.

However,

• The service provided an abstinence based recovery model, involving mutual aid, support and self-help, that was recognised by national guidance as being effective for some people.
• Clients consistently said they valued the support and understanding shown by staff who had been through the treatment programme themselves.
• Staff were very committed to their work and to supporting clients in their recovery.