T.H.O.M.A.S

Updated 20 November 2025

We assessed the residential substance misuse service T.H.O.M.A.S Salford Recovery Centre on 24 July 2025. We last assessed the service on 27 June 2019. We undertook this assessment due to the age of the previous rating. At this assessment we assessed 1 assessment service group: Residential substance misuse services.

We found that overall, the service was rated Requires Improvement. This was because some areas required improvement to ensure consistently high standards of care.

T.H.O.M.A.S Salford Recovery Centre was registered with the Care Quality Commission in June 2011, to deliver the regulated activity: Accommodation for persons who require treatment for substance misuse.

The Salford Recovery Centre service is provided by the T.H.O.M.A.S (Those On The Margins Of A Society) organisation, which is an independent substance misuse service provider. It provides substance addiction residential rehabilitation for males over 18 years of age. The service is commissioned by the local NHS trust to provide services as part of the Achieve network. Achieve is the local substance misuse treatment network. The local NHS trust is the lead provider for the Achieve network.

The recovery model of Salford Recovery Centre is a structured, abstinence-based residential recovery programme built around the internationally recognised 12-Step model. Residents live and engage as part of a therapeutic community, where recovery is supported through shared responsibility, mutual support, and a safe, substance-free environment. This includes a group dynamic programme, and individual focused work, based on the Alcoholics Anonymous 12-Step programme. The service has the capacity for 7 residents. When we assessed the service there were 6 residents.

At the time of the assessment, the service had a nominated individual but did not have a registered manager. Interim management arrangements were in place, and the service later submitted a registered manager application.

We rated the service Requires Improvement because we found 3 breaches of regulations in relation to premises and equipment, governance, and staffing.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

Updated 10 June 2025

We rated the service Requires Improvement because we found 3 breaches of regulations in relation to premises and equipment, governance, and staffing.

We found that the environment was not consistently maintained. Some areas and furnishings were not clean and posed safety risks. Cleaning products were not always stored safely, and cleaning and monitoring practices were not consistently effective.

The service did not have clear governance processes to ensure resident safety through the use of Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans. There was a lack of effective oversight in relation to cleanliness, the environment, and implementation of some policies. Service leaders did not ensure staff received all required training in learning disability and autism, updated adult safeguarding Level 2, or had regular appraisals.

However, the service had enough staff to support residents. When additional cover was needed, the provider used bank staff who had existing or prior experience with the service. This ensured familiarity with provider procedures and supported consistency of care.

Residents spoke positively about the therapeutic programme and the staff who supported them. They said they felt safe and understood the contract commitment required to engage with their recovery journey during their admission.

Stakeholders and family members gave positive feedback about the recovery progress they saw residents making and they noted the support given to residents to develop healthier lifestyles. Stakeholders described the service as effective and responsive, and highlighted strong resident-staff relationships, and its development of a network of recovery peers and mentors. 

Mental Capacity Act / Consent to Treatment Overview

Residents consented to care and treatment on admission. Residents’ mental capacity was assessed prior to admission, and the service did not admit residents who lacked capacity to engage with the recovery programme. We reviewed care records and saw that all residents were asked mental capacity assessment questions on admission, and these were recorded in the care record consent section.

The provider had a mental capacity policy in place. Staff had not received mandatory Mental Capacity Act training. However, staff we spoke with were able to describe what to do if they had concerns about a resident’s mental capacity, including reporting this to the referrer or to mental health services. Staff consistently supported residents to make decisions about their care and recovery plans.