Cocoon Residential Rehab

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 meant 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 as good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. Staff were not always responsive to people’s needs. Families and carers did not have access to support groups. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

However, most people in treatment told us staff were polite and respectful, and their experience of treatment had mostly been positive.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Caring.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People told us staff were “lovely” and their experience had been positive overall. People felt staff were polite and respectful towards them. One person told us they would go to a member of staff if they needed support.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff considered individual needs. There was a disabled access bedroom on the ground floor and a disabled access bathroom. We observed mobility aids such as a shower chair in the downstairs bathroom.

Leaders told us they had strong links with external communities, such as local churches who supported the service by accompanying people to services and community activities. Leaders told us staff supported people to attend their place of worship. One person told us that staff had taken people to the church.

There was information available on mutual aid, such as cocaine anonymous, gambling and families anonymous.

We found 1 person in treatment had a video care plan in place, which was developed to strengthen family relationships and promote emotional wellbeing.

Leaders told us an interpreter could be accessed if needed.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

There was an activity timetable in place. Activities on the timetable included yoga, therapeutic art, mindfulness, film night and a music group. There was also time for walks or planned visits. People told us some activities on the timetable were not offered. For example, meditation, quiz night and acupuncture were not available.

There was a visiting policy in place, which stated procedures that should be followed when arranging a visit. The policy included processes that must be followed to safeguard children.

There were no family support sessions available, however there was information available on families anonymous. The service also offered family members questionnaires and gave family members an opportunity to describe their experiences of their loved one’s addiction.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff held house meetings, where people were given an opportunity to raise concerns or feedback to the service. We reviewed meeting minutes and found that maintenance issues, such as the oven not working properly were raised in April and May 2026. People we spoke with told us that maintenance issues, such as repairing the oven were not immediately fixed. This meant that staff did not always respond to people’s needs.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Leaders did not ensure staff had regular supervision or appraisals. Staff supervision compliance was 30%. This meant staff did not always have the opportunity to discuss wellbeing concerns with their line manager.

However, staff we spoke with told us they felt supported by leaders. Staff satisfaction surveys were completed with staff across all Cocoon services between September and December 2025. Data from surveys from all services showed most staff said they felt appreciated by their manager. When asked about stress at work, 12 staff members reported feeling extremely or moderately stressed and 15 staff members reported feeling slightly or not at all stressed. Staff felt that communication and consistency could be improved.

The service introduced 4 wellbeing days per year for staff members from April 2026.