Ark House

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to outstanding. This meant people were truly respected and valued as individuals; and empowered as partners in their care in an exceptional service.

Staff treat clients with compassion, kindness and understanding. Staff respected client’s privacy and dignity, ensuring they felt respected, listened to and heard . They understood the individual needs of clients and where they were in their recovery journey. Staff supported clients to understand and manage their recovery, treatment and emotional and psychological well-being. Staff involved clients in care planning, risk assessments and, actively sought their feedback on the quality of the service provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers where appropriate, which was reflected in our feedback.

This service scored 90 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional at treating clients with kindness, empathy and compassion and in how they respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff always treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff had a deep level of understanding and knowledge of issues clients faced at all stages of recovery, and responded with empathy, insight and the ability to maintain dignity. We observed group therapy sessions which demonstrated staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with clients and showed that they were discreet, respectful and responsive. They provided help, emotional support and advice at the time when clients needed it.

Staff were flexible around client’s appointments for their health and well-being and able to make compromises to rules within the service if a client needed additional support, which was reflected within care plans.

Feedback from clients and family members reflected the approach of staff. Clients told us staff were invaluable as they really understood the client group and how to reach them when things are difficult. All 9 clients we spoke with gave positive feedback about staff and leaders. 5 family members we spoke to described staff as having ‘saved their loved ones lives’.

We saw evidence of referrals to other services where required and close interworking with community teams. Staff knew how and when to refer to the correct agencies. Staff were mindful of client’s spirituality, especially within the 12-step programme, which is centred around a spiritual discourse. Staff told us they encouraged clients to develop their spirituality and understand what it meant to them individually.

Staff, clients and family members told us they knew how to raise concerns, although none of the people we spoke with had ever needed to raise concerns with the service. Clients felt staff were approachable and kind. Staff felt supported, valued and respected within their roles.

One care told us “My daughter is now clean, working, functioning and really enjoying life. Started a group for the 12 step support programme and she lives her life by the 12 steps- it's so important to her. She wouldn't be here without Ark House. Our daughter speaks highly of Ark House- she can't speak highly enough of them.”

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service treated clients as individuals and was exceptional in how they made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The service took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture, unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Clients told us that the service made adjustments in relation to their physical health needs and ensured that their dignity was maintained throughout their stay. Clients told us staff recognised when they were feeling low and knew how to support them, often going above and beyond. For example, clients told us staff had taken them out for a drive or walk as part of their 1:1 to give them space from the service and to allow them to talk about how they were feeling and what struggles they were facing.

Families f told us that the children of clients were helped with the process, by being able to visit on Saturdays and spend time with their loved ones. Family and client feedback was that the service met their individual and family needs which had a great impact on their recovery.

Staff provided information on individual -based specific support groups to aid treatment and recovery and provided clients with information of additional support opportunities to enhance recovery. Staff made adjustments for clients who were dyslexic to enable them to follow the materials provided to the wider client group, offering reassurance and support in order for them to succeed. Staff were able to source information and treatment materials in different languages to make treatment more accessible. Some staff spoke multiple languages which assisted communication and helped people feel more reassured.

Dietary requirements were met and documented within care plans, staff communicated any needs, allergies or cultural preferences to the chef’s, who then adjusted meals to suit individuals.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff created collaborative, recovery focused care plans for clients, which outlined ways to maximise independence, choice, and control and, how staff could support them to do so. Staff actively promoted independence and responsibility roles within the service, including allocating people as ‘house leader’. This helped to develop a sense of pride and purpose to clients. Staff encouraged clients to engage in mutual help meetings, 1:1 therapies, as well as group sessions. Clients were offered the opportunity to provide feedback and share their views on their support and treatment. Family members we spoke with felt included and listened to during the meetings that they attended.

There were information leaflets throughout the service which identified support groups, networks, therapy sessions and activities available, groups that had planned activities in the community, advocacy services and local services in the area relevant to recovery. Clients could provide feedback in a range of different ways and could also make requests through a request book. The requests were monitored daily and shared at handovers, following this request logs were updated with actions taken.

We spoke with 5 family members who all felt that the support and treatment received ensured their loved ones maintained their independence as much as possible and had a voice within their recovery journey.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood clients’ needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff understood risks and potential triggers which could negatively impact client’s recovery. Staff maintained strict and professional boundaries to ensure the service was a safe and calm environment at all times. This included responding to challenges with client’s mental health, physical health and behavioural issues. Clients told us that they understood the contracts for the service and what was acceptable in terms of protecting the client group within the service. Clients told us that some people had been asked to leave the service in order to protect others. Staff were able to tell us about the policy and processes in place for when treatment was discontinued.

All staff had training in first aid, behaviours that challenge and lone working. Staff did not complete any form of restraint within the service. Staff were trained in de-escalation and felt that this was effective. Clients fed back that staff were skilled in managing situations particularly those where people were distressed. They told us staff knew when to give people space and when to intervene. All incidents were recorded and reported to safeguarding where appropriate.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service always cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and was exceptional at supporting and enabling staff to always deliver person-centered care.

We spoke with 9 members of staff, including management, directors, counsellors, support staff and volunteers. The range of time working in the service varied, from months to years. All staff we spoke to were very positive about the work environment and organizational culture. Staff told us they felt respected, supported and valued. Some staff told us about their own recovery experiences and how they are able to implement this into their ongoing support of others. Staff were proud, positive and excited about the service and what they provide. Staff felt that the team around them were compassionate, supportive and reliable. Each morning handover meeting, staff reflected on their wellbeing and colleagues offered support where needed. Staff also celebrated personal goals and achievements.

Staff felt listened to, with any wellbeing concerns being discussed in directors’ meetings. Leaders told us that Ark House invested in staff, cared about maintaining wellbeing and ongoing development. We observed staff interactions which demonstrated a very supportive and together culture within the team.

Staff were keen to learn and develop through training funded by Ark House, including psychotherapy courses, therapy and counselling courses and online learning. Leaders felt listened to and supported, with regular offers of further development in directors training, registered management master’s and business courses.

The service only employed volunteers with lived experience who had completed treatment. Volunteers were required to be out of treatment for 12 weeks before commencing the role and received a full induction and training. The service also provided a volunteer handbook, similar to the staff handbook. Staff of all levels described support from leaders, and each other, as ‘above and beyond’.