The Recovery Lodge

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

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

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff involved people in decisions about their care. People we spoke with gave positive feedback about the staff and therapists. They told us their recovery programme was ‘very much client led and supported by staff’. People using the service had access to a person-centred therapist. They provided people with a safe space to focus on feelings, give feedback and support their peers.

People told us they felt involved in their care, from admission through to discharge planning and support with linking with local community support groups.

Staff knew people well and were able to tell us about people’s individual experiences. However, this was not clearly and consistently recorded in people’s care plans.

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 supported people using the service to maintain contact with their families and carers. Staff told us family therapy was offered. Feedback had been received from people’s families. One noted, ‘[Our loved one] seemed to actually really enjoy their time at The Recovery Lodge and seems to have come out much more positive. They seem to have bonded well with their house guests & I hope that they will all help each other carry on with their recovery journey.’

Staff supported people using the service to access their chosen place of worship within the local community.

Following discharge from the service staff continued to encourage and support people to attend local support groups.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed. The registered manager kept a log of whether incidents were notifiable to CQC or the local authority safeguarding team.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of records.

Staff communicated with people using the service so that they understood their care and treatment, including finding effective ways to communicate with people with communication difficulties. For example, when a person had difficulty reading, information had been provided in an audio format using a small electronic device.

Staff ensured that people could obtain information on treatments, local services and how to complain. Staff provided people with a welcome pack on admission. This included information about therapies and activities, restricted items, visits, meals, how to make a complaint, the importance of dignity and respect and the use of CCTV.

Staff ensured families were regularly updated about peoples’ progress. Staff told us they and the counsellors had regular contact with people’s families.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Staff made people aware how to raise concerns about the service. This was included in the information pack provided for people using the service and discussed at house meetings. When people using the service made suggestions, these were considered and action was taken to improve the service provided. For example, people had fed back that they would prefer not to attend fellowship meetings on a Friday as they were often tired at the end of the week. Staff changed the day they attended as a result of this.

The service had not had any formal complaints in the previous 12 months. Staff understood the complaints escalation process. Complaints were independently reviewed by a non-executive director.

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.

The registered manager used admission criteria to decide if the service could provide appropriate care and treatment to people. 

An Advanced Nurse Practitioner was available during working hours for advice and guidance by phone. Outside these hours staff called 111 or 999 if they had any concerns about a person’s health.

Staff ensured people had post-discharge care. This included contact after 7 and 14 days and again after 12 weeks. Staff told us there were also opportunities for people to return to the service for 4 days of after care where they attend the service for the day and said this was beneficial for both people currently using the service and those who had been discharged.

Staff told us they planned discharges with people and that discharge letters were sent to people’s GPs.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good 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 promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. People were encouraged to give feedback about all elements of the service provided at weekly house meetings. Ideas to improve the service were welcomed.

Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights. Staff respected people’s protected characteristics.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Staff liaised with people using the service to plan for the future. Staff told us that people using the service completed a ‘continued recovery plan’ when they were approaching discharge. This was discussed either in a group setting or a one to one session with a counsellor or key worker.

There were processes in place to facilitate the planning and delivery of discharge and staff worked well with other professionals to ensure people using the service could access the services and support they needed.

Staff ensured people using the service referred themselves to their local community substance misuse service to ensure they continued to receive support following discharge from the service.