The Care Quality Commission
  • Residential substance misuse service

Recovery Project

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

10 Ditchling Rise, Brighton, East Sussex, BN1 4QL (01273) 684741

Provided and run by:
BHT Sussex

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Recovery Project on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Recovery Project, you can give feedback on this service.

25th September 2019

During a routine inspection

We rated the Recovery Project as good because:

  • The service provided safe care. The premises where clients were seen were safe and clean. The number of clients on the caseload of the teams, and of individual members of staff, was not too high to prevent staff from giving each client the time they needed. Staff assessed and managed risk well and followed good practice with respect to safeguarding.
  • Staff developed holistic, recovery-oriented care plans informed by a comprehensive assessment. They provided a range of treatments suitable to the needs of the clients and in line with national guidance about best practice. Staff engaged in clinical audit to evaluate the quality of care they provided.
  • The teams included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of clients under their care. Managers ensured that these staff received training, supervision and appraisal. Staff worked well together as a multidisciplinary team and relevant services outside the organisation.
  • Staff treated clients with compassion and kindness and understood the individual needs of clients. They actively involved clients in decisions and care planning.
  • The service was easy to access. Staff planned and managed discharge well and had alternative pathways for people whose needs it could not meet.
  • The service was well led, and the governance processes ensured that its procedures ran smoothly.

11 April 2017

During a routine inspection

We do not currently rate independent standalone substance misuse services.

We found the following areas of good practice:

  • Without exception clients told us they felt safe at the Recovery Project, physically and emotionally. The service had a thorough assessment process in place prior to admission. Clients received a thorough induction into the project and a comprehensive handbook which contained information about the service, their rights, how to raise a concern or complaint and consent to share information. Clients had good and comprehensive access to a variety of psychological therapies either on a one to one basis or in a group setting. The provider encouraged volunteer and internship work placements for clients. Ex-clients told us they were well prepared for move on and had been supported to develop strong recovery support networks in the local community.
  • All the clients we spoke with were extremely positive about the service, stating how supportive, caring and compassionate the staff were. We observed this throughout our inspection. Staff were enthusiastic, dedicated and motivated by their work. Staff spoke respectfully about their clients, at all times and demonstrated an excellent understanding of their issues with a non-judgemental approach. The atmosphere created at the project was one of recovery, hope and optimism.
  • The provider carried out a satisfaction survey for every client individually as well as two additional surveys each year, one carried out by another organisation. In the most recent survey in December 2016, 100% of clients were either satisfied or very satisfied that the service was meeting their needs and that the support offered was enabling clients to achieve their plans and aspirations.
  • Clients’ risk assessments and care plans were robust, recovery focussed and person centred. The assessment of clients’ needs and the planning of their support, treatment and care was thorough, individualised and optimistic. Staff considered and met the needs of clients at all times. There was evidence of client involvement in the care records we looked at and all clients had signed a copy of their care plans. Staff were person centred, highly individualised and recovery orientated. We also saw that clients reviewed their care plans regularly with their keyworker. The client successful completion rate for the treatment programme was 68% during the preceding year. All clients received a thorough physical health assessment prior to commencing treatment and staff identified and managed risks to physical health.
  • There were enough suitably qualified and trained staff to provide care to a very good standard. The provider employed many staff with lived experience of addiction which further enhanced the skill mix and diversity of staff available. Skilled staff delivered care and treatment. The staff were consistently and pro-actively involved in client care and everyone’s contribution was considered of equal value. Staff were confident in how to report incidents and they told us about changes they had made to service delivery as a result of feedback, following incidents. The Recovery Project had a strong focus on recovery, treatment, empowering clients and enabling client peer support. All staff were committed to the vision and values of the organisation. All staff had high morale and told us that they felt very well supported and engaged with a visible, highly experienced, skilled and strong manager. Staff were motivated to ensure the objectives of the organisation and of the service were achieved.
  • Governance structures were clear, well documented, followed and reported accurately. These were controls for managers to assure themselves that the service was effective and being provided to a good standard. The manager and their team were fully committed to making positive changes. Changes had been made to ensure that quality improvements were made, for example, through the use of audits. The service had clear mechanisms for reporting incidents of harm or risk of harm and we saw evidence that the service learnt from when things had gone wrong.
  • The project was clean and well maintained. The premises were comfortable with a large courtyard garden and clients told us the environment aided their recovery.

However, we also found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

  • The Project’s risks were individually scored and rated, but there was no local risk register, pulling all of the known risks together.

5 February 2014

During a routine inspection

We spoke with people who used the service, the manager, administration and project workers. We looked at clients support plans, staff files and the service's policies and procedures.

At the last inspection in January 2013 we found the Recovery Project was non-compliant with regulation 22 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (HSCA) which relates to the outcome area of staffing. This was because the provider did not have, at all times, sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced persons employed for the purpose of carrying on the regulated activity. At this inspection we found that the provider had taken the steps they needed to achieve compliance.

We found before people received support they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.

Support was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. We noted the comments made by one person, 'The best thing I've got during my time here is the hope, strength, courage and ability to stand on my own two feet.'

People were supported in a clean, hygienic environment. People were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed.

There was an effective complaints system available. Comments and complaints people made were responded to appropriately. A staff member told us, "The manager keeps their door open and we can always go in and talk with them if we had a concern or complaint either for the people we work with or ourselves.'

30 January 2013

During a routine inspection

There were 24 people who used the service at the time of our visit. We used a number of different methods to help us understand their views and experiences. We spoke with a group of sixteen people and other people individually. We observed the care provided and looked at supporting documentation. We spoke with staff and the manager.

People who used the service understood the care and treatment choices available to them. People told us that their choices had been respected and listened to. They said that they had been able to make changes to the service as long as they were appropriate and would not jeopardise the recovery programme or people's safety.

Everyone who used the service said that they felt safe and knew how to raise a concern should the need arise. People told us that they were happy living there and that they received the help that they needed. One person commented, 'It is a great opportunity'. Another person said, 'I am so glad that it (the service) is here'.

We found that there was a lack of additional staff to cover absences. This meant that the service could not respond to unexpected changing circumstances, for example to cover sickness and emergencies.

There was a manager employed at the home. However the time of our inspection they had not submitted an application to register. We had discussed this with the nominated individual prior to our visit. They have given us an assurance that a registered manager application would be submitted.