Ark House

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

This means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has changed to outstanding. This meant service leadership was exceptional and distinctive. Leaders and the service culture they created drove and improved high-quality, person-centred care.

We found that leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles effectively. Staff knew and understood the service’s vision and values and how they applied to the work of their team. Staff we spoke with felt respected, supported and valued. Governance processes operated effectively to provide oversight of the service. Performance and risk were managed well within the team. Staff had access to the information they needed to provide safe and effective treatment to clients, and leaders collected data about outcomes and performance which were used to improve the service.

This service scored 89 (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 an excellent standard. The service had a very clear shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and an exceptional understanding of the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Staff were able to used lived experience within their work and knowledge of the 12- step programme to support clients at all stages of recovery. The staff had a clear understanding of the provider’s vision and values and this was reflected in our observations during inspection. The service’s senior leadership team had successfully communicated the provider’s vision and values to the frontline staff in this service, which was reflected within their compassionate approach to engaging clients.

Staff had the opportunity to contribute to discussions about the strategy for their service, especially where changes were being implemented. Staff told us they felt listened to and that idea’s were always shared. This view was shared by all staff we spoke with.

Staff complimented the managers for their collaborative approach and enabling staff voices to be heard, despite what role they had or their length of time working there. Staff were able to tell us how they were working to deliver high quality care within the budgets available. Staff noted that they have requested a minibus to enable larger group trips out in the community.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service had exceptionally inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively and did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Leaders we spoke with told us of the value of shared experiences between themselves and other staff, how this enabled the service to deliver effective support and treatment to clients entering the service. Leaders and staff were compassionate, empathetic and viewed as respected and credible to clients. This was reflected in client interviews, where clients told us how much they respected the staff team for having gone through services and treatment themselves. Clients told us this was inspiring and motivating.

Through lived experience, ongoing development and education provided through Ark and in partnership with local universities, leaders had an exceptional understanding of issues and challenges within services and how to improve the experience and effectiveness for clients. Leaders completed shifts alongside colleagues and were always visible. Staff and client interviews were reflective of this. Leaders exampled Ark House providing opportunities for higher education, completing Masters’ degree and courses relevant to enhancing Ark House as a service. Leaders were engaged in ongoing career development courses and reported ongoing support from the trustee’s.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional at fostering a positive culture where people knew they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff told us they were aware of the whistleblowing policy and procedure that was in place. Staff had access to a freedom to speak up guardian and staff we spoke with knew who they were and how to contact them. There were posters throughout the service which detailed how to make a complaint. Staff were able to raise concerns through a variety of methods, including in person, email, or writing.

Staff we spoke with were confident in being able to raise issues or concerns without fear of reprisal. Most staff we spoke with told us they have never had to raise a complaint. Those who had raised complaints or concerns told us that these were listened to, acted upon and resolved in an appropriate manner and were satisfied with the outcomes. Staff told us they feel comfortable enough to speak to leaders, knowing they will be listened to without conflict or judgement.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service strongly valued diversity in their workforce. They had an inclusive and fair culture which had improved equality and equity for people who work for them.

The service was comprised of a diverse workforce. The service encouraged a fair and inclusive culture that avoided judgement, fostered diverse backgrounds and reduced stigma. Staff were able to apply to work flexibly and this was supported by leadership. Personal circumstances, such as caring responsibilities and health issues were taken into account when supporting staff. Staff reflected this in interviews with us and this was demonstrated within the staff satisfaction surveys reviewed. Diversity and equality was celebrated within the service. Staff had the appropriate training in equality and diversity and at the time of inspection, compliance was at 100%.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and share this securely with others when appropriate.

There was strong oversight and governance within the service. Managers were aware of any risk issues and these were addressed quickly and effectively, including oversight of beds, discharges and planned admissions. Oversight was evidenced within directors meeting minutes and actions were outcome within these.

During this inspection, we observed both morning meetings and handover from night staff to day staff. We reviewed minutes from team discussions which evidenced that staff had continuous oversight of clients’ needs, risks and progress within treatment. There were structured team meetings led by both the manager and clinical director where information was shared with staff. Staff understood the arrangements for working with external stakeholders to meet the needs of the clients.

Staff undertook or participated in local clinical audits. The audits were sufficient to provide assurance and staff acted on the results when needed. We saw that actions and feedback was provided to staff or clients, depending on the topic or issue.

Staff were able to escalate any perceived risks to leaders and knew how to access the risk register for the service. Risk registers were reviewed monthly by senior leaders or when a new risk had been identified. Staff had access to the equipment and information technology needed to do their work. Most care records were documented on an IT system that had been specifically designed by the service.

The service had a business continuity plan for dealing with emergency situations such as adverse weather conditions, flu outbreaks, loss of IT and fires and there were personal emergency evacuation plans in place for clients. Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records and staff had implemented recommendations from reviews of deaths, incidents, complaints and safeguarding alerts at the service level.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service clearly understood and carried out their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, and services worked seamlessly for people. They always share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement.

The service had developed strong working relationships with other local and national providers. The service had completed visits to other services for peer reviewing and learning, in order to develop and share best practice and support. Feedback from other stakeholders was positive and demonstrated how the two services were working together to understand increased numbers of early exits (leaving treatment before treatment had finished).

The service had also participated in research projects regarding the efficacy of the 12-step programme and the benefits of the therapies involved. The service also engaged with commissioners on a regular basis to provide information regarding service availability and engaged with professionals to determine suitability of treatment for potential clients.

There was evidence of regular liaison with healthcare professionals throughout clients’ treatment journeys.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service had a strong focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They always encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, positive outcomes and quality of life for people. They actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

The service participated in research and service user involvement groups to develop learning, improvement and innovative work for clients. We reviewed evidence of a research paper which focused on therapies Ark House had delivered.

We also reviewed evidence of service developed animations to help clients understand addiction, help families and young people understand the treatment process, and this was continued to be developed at the time of our inspection. This also gave another level of reaching clients who had communication difficulties.

The previous financial year closed the end of £570,000.00 being spent on Ark House in terms of improvements and renovations, new furniture and equipment. Ark House received a major investment in IT (information technology) that has computerised client record system which we reviewed whilst on site. The care record system is a hybrid of tablets, desktop PC’s and company smart phones. All Ark House policies and procedures are now accessible through a smart phone app for all staff.

The service had invested in several smart phones for clients to use to keep in contact with family and loved ones, to take with them on hospital visits or on other occasions when it is important to keep in contact with Ark House or for safety reasons. The service had also implemented a client request system, from identifying maintenance issues, to requesting help with benefits, banking, court cases, doctors and medication requests.

The service delivered masterclasses at each team meeting with any issues that have been highlighted through audits that staff need to be aware of.