Archived: Freedom Recovery Centre Limited

Updated 16 June 2021

Freedom Recovery Centre Limited is registered to provide accommodation for persons who require treatment for substance misuse. The service delivers a psychosocial support model based on the ‘12-step’ recovery programme. As part of this clients attend group therapy, have access to individual support sessions with their allocated key worker and other activities such as completing life stories. The service only admits clients who have completed opioid or alcohol detoxification and are abstinent at the time of entering the service.

The service can provide accommodation for a maximum of five clients, of any gender, and was first registered with the Care Quality Commission in 2011. To avoid people having to share bedrooms and maintain social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic, the service has limited the number of people staying on site over night to a maximum of three clients.

We carried out this inspection to check if the provider had made changes since our last visit in December 2020 and had sustained any improvements made. During this inspection we looked at all five of our key questions.

When we last inspected this service in December 2020, we carried out a focused inspection after concerns were raised with us during our ongoing monitoring of the service. Concerns included governance arrangements, infection control procedures, and how well the service managed risk and investigated safeguarding concerns. The inspection reviewed whether the service was ‘safe’ and ‘well-led’. Following that inspection, we rated the service as inadequate overall and placed them into special measures. We also took urgent enforcement action and place conditions on the provider’s registration to ensure it took action to keep people safe from avoidable harm.

In August 2019 we completed a fully comprehensive inspection of the service where we rated it as good overall.

At the time of the current inspection there was a Registered Manager in post. However, due to extenuating circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Registered Manager had been working mostly remotely since March 2020.

What people who use the service say

We did not conduct face-to-face interviews with clients during our onsite visit. This was to limit the potential risk of transmitting COVID-19. We instead spoke to three clients over the telephone and reviewed recent feedback submitted by clients via our online ‘Give Feedback on Care’ service.

Feedback we received from clients was consistently positive about their experience of the service. Clients said that staff provided truly person-centred care. Clients said they felt they had been supported to be the leader of their own recovery journey and that staff and volunteers had been very empathic to their needs. Clients felt that staff and volunteers challenged them appropriately and treated them with respect.

Updated 16 June 2021

Our rating of this location stayed the same. We rated it as inadequate because:

• The provider had not ensured the care premises, equipment and facilities were safe. Important checks relating to health and safety had not taken place. This meant staff, volunteers and clients were at increased risk of avoidable harm.
• Staff had not received basic training to keep themselves and clients safe. Leaders had not ensured that staff and volunteers had stayed up to date with their mandatory training in areas including first aid, fire safety and medication awareness.
• Staff did not always assess risks to individual clients thoroughly, meaning there were potential gaps in the way they managed and mitigated risks such as self-harm. At our previous inspection, there were similar issues that the provider had failed to address.
• Staff did not engage in clinical audit to evaluate the quality of care they provided. Some aspects of care planning were out dated and did not follow national, best practice guidelines.
• The service was not well led. Leaders had lost oversight of the service, meaning performance and quality were not well managed. We found significant failures in governance processes and systems. For example, some staff and volunteers had not been risk assessed in terms of their susceptibility to COVID-19. Audits completed on staff records did not identify this issue. As a result, the service could not be assured it had identified and protected individuals who may be at higher risk of contracting the virus.
• Some policies and procedures had not been fully adapted to the service, were outdated or had not been implemented effectively. This included the provider’s medication management health and safety and auditing policies and procedures. This meant staff did not always have clear guidance to inform them of how to carry aspects of their role safely and effectively.
• Leadership capacity and capability was insufficient to deliver high-quality, sustainable care. Leaders had lost oversight of the service, so performance and quality were not well managed. Where areas for improvement had been identified, the provider did not always act to rectify them.
• The provider had failed to complete the necessary checks required for directors to ensure they were suitable for their role. These checks are legally required under the fit and proper person requirement (FPPR) within Regulation 5 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008, (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The need to complete these checks had been highlighted to the service at our last inspection in December 2020.
• Some staff and volunteers reported that the service had been under increased pressure, during the COVID-19 pandemic and since our last inspection in December 2020, and they did not always feel well supported to fulfil their roles.

However:

• The premises was clean.
• The team included or had access to a range of specialists required to meet the needs of clients under their care. Staff worked together as a team and with relevant services outside the organisation. Staff adapted the support they provided based on feedback from clients.
• Staff treated clients with compassion and kindness. They actively involved clients in decisions and care planning.
• The service was easy to access. Staff managed discharge well and directed people to alternative care pathways if the service could not meet their needs.
• The provider promoted equality and diversity in its day-to-day work and in providing opportunities for career progression. This included supporting clients to find volunteering opportunities after discharge.

Updated 16 June 2021

Updated 11 March 2021