Ark House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. The service was tailored to meet the needs of individuals and delivered to ensure flexibility, choice and continuity of care. The service had complete oversight of bed availability and managed waiting times well. The service was also able to cater for emergency beds within 24 hours of notice. Clients were prepared for discharge through extensive planning, including ongoing support within the community, which is pre-arranged before leaving the service.The design of the service was shared rooms, which was part of the treatment plan, to ensure people were not alone whilst in their initial recovery stage. The layout, and furnishings of the service supported clients treatment, privacy and dignity. Staff supported clients with activities outside the service, such as appointments, education and maintaining, or rebuilding family relationships. The service met the needs of all clients – including those with a protected characteristic. Staff helped clients with communication, advocacy and cultural and spiritual support. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the result.

Staff held regular 1:1’s with clients and were responsive to clients’ needs and wishes. Family members also fed back that the service was responsive to needs, questions and queries.

This service scored 82 (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 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people were at the centre of their treatment, in partnership with clients and staff knew how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The service ensured that staff had relevant training to meet individual needs of clients, including trauma therapy, family therapy, motivational interviewing and a deep level of understanding of the 12-step programme and how this was different for each client at difference phases of their recovery journey. Care records reflected personal preferences and needs, including physical health needs, mental health needs and individual risk assessments.

Staff empowered clients to be independent by providing resources and tools that supported integration into community settings, such as links with local organisations, groups and sponsors that promoted and maintained recovery. Staff also encouraged clients to maintain family links, including with their children, that would be supportive on their return back into the community.

The service followed the 12-step programme, which required clients to participate in this line of treatment and recovery work. The service encouraged clients make the 12 steps personal to them as individuals. and out observations of group sessions and feedback from clients corroborated this.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Staff were knowledgeable and understanding of the importance of maintaining community links, encouraging clients to expand on their recovery resources, with external groups and stakeholders and feel included within the community. This gave clients confidence to maintain recovery whilst outside of the service. Feedback from clients about staff support, encouragement and empowerment was positive.

Clients were supported to explore their spirituality throughout all stages of the 12-step programme. Clients had access to community resources and support to access places of worship. Staff encouraged clients to develop skills for working life and reintegration, including volunteering opportunities within Ark House itself following 12 weeks out of treatment.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an excellent standard. The service was exceptional at developing information in appropriate, accurate and up-to-date formats that were tailored to individual needs.

During our inspection, we noted that Care Quality Commission posters with ratings were displayed throughout the hospital for clients and visitors to see. Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed and within indicated time frames. Information governance systems maintained the confidentiality of patient records. There were record systems in place that were safely and securely stored. Staff audited records to ensure there were no gaps in record keeping, such as care documentation, client records and staff records. The service was in keeping with the accessible information standards and provided information in a range of languages as required. We also saw evidence of clients with dyslexia being supported with information.

Client and family member feedback confirmed that staff provided valuable information and updates on a weekly basis, or sooner if required. All clients were given client handbooks and family members were given a carers guide.

Care records showed that regular contact with other professionals involved in the clients’ treatment was documented and communication was maintained throughout the clients stay at the service. This included community teams, GP’s, pharmacy and social care. Staff meetings were held regularly with minutes recorded and information shared continuously across the team. Staff told us that they always felt included in decisions and leaders were approachable, transparent and honest.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed an excellent standard. The service was exceptional at enabling people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They always involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service had a complaints policy in place. Complaints were dealt with by leaders of the service, including the clinical director and manager. The number of complaints in the last 12 months was 5. 4 complaints were upheld, with full investigations and outcomes provided to the complainants. The service sought appropriate advice from the Care Quality Commission (CQC) where appropriate to do so. There were no themes or trends to the complaints reviewed. We spoke with staff who told us they felt comfortable to raise any issues or complaints with managers and that they always felt listened to. Staff understood the policy and procedures in place to deal with complaints and how to escalate these appropriately. Feedback was always provided. The service had a freedom to speak up guardian in place and relevant training around handling complaints.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Due to the layout, building design and facilities, the service could not accommodate clients who required a wheelchair. This was made clear within the referral criteria and at any assessments. The service made appropriate arrangements to accommodate those with any restricted or limited mobility to be on the lower floor for bedroom use and ascertained what facilities clients would require access to.

The service always had a member of staff available if medical attention was required, staff would support in arranging medical assistance from either the GP or ambulance service. The service is located 10 minutes from Scarborough Hospital. Staff supported clients to appointments and ensured any medical needs were met.

The service and staff ensured that clients were fully prepared for discharge into the community. This included liaising with appropriate services, ensuring clients were attending self-help groups or had links to groups within their local area and registered with GP’s and pharmacies. The service provided clients with help to arrange funding, benefits and ensure accommodation was in place for clients leaving the service. The clinical director had direct oversight of discharges.

Clients who required treatment longer than 6 weeks entered the extended care part of the service[LN1] . The extended care is for those who have completed initial treatment but are felt to require some additional time to ensure their recovery journey remains successful. Ark House provided funding for clients who required extra support in order to achieve recovery, succeed in treatment and achieve the best possible outcomes.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an excellent standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff within the service were centred and focussed around promoting a culture in which the clients using the service felt empowered to give their views. The staff within the service had insight, knowledge and understanding of the inequalities clients might have faced and were able to inspire hope, resilience and empowerment to the client group through shared experience. The provider had undertaken equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage through thorough risk assessments and individual need. New clients were allocated guardian angels on entry to the service, which were clients further on in recovery who could offer support, understanding and encouragement during their stay. Staff were trained in equality, diversity and inclusion as part of their mandatory training.

Staff were also supportive of clients identifying as LGBTQ and this was evidenced through posters displayed in the service. Staff provided us with feedback from LGBTQ clients which included access to online meetings especially for LGBTQ clients, that clients felt they were treated equally, pride celebrations, and an example of a client who identified as gay who was initially concerned about sharing a room, who was immediately reassured and met by his guardian angel who supported him throughout.

Client feedback told us that clients were treated without judgement, and with empathy, understanding and support. Family feedback also corroborated that people felt respected within the service, and this contributed to their success.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. People were given exceptional support to plan for important life changes, so they could make informed decisions about their future.

Staff create personalised care plans to account for the clients’ needs, wishes and feelings. Regular 1:1 sessions with counsellors supported care plans to be reflective of client’s goals and areas of concern. Care records showed that these 1:1 sessions reviewed targets that were achievable, time measured and attainable, in line with goal setting standards. Clients were supported holistically to plan for their discharges and goals following discharge. Some clients were supported into volunteering roles. Staff reported clients felt a great sense of pride in being able to give back to the local community, and this strengthen community support, networks and bonds.

Client feedback regarding staff support was positive in all areas. Clients felt they were ready to continue their lives in a positive and healthy way, being able to achieve goals they had previously not thought possible. Staff ensured that clients were supported into the community and were able to continue attending sessions where required for additional encouragement and support from the service. Where people moved back to their local areas out of reach of the service, clients were offered online meetings to stay connected.