Archived: Right Start Rehabilitation

Updated 24 October 2018

Right Start Rehabilitation was a r ehabilitation  service for substance abuse. The service offered a 12-week residential stay along side support with  detoxification and a therapy timetable that centred around the 12-step programe. Following completion of the initial 12 weeks, service users had the option to stay for a further 12 weeks to complete additional interventions to support with integration back into the community and recovery strategies. 

Service users self funded to access this service. 

The service was registered by CQC on 28 July 2017.

CQC register Right Start Rehabilitation to carry out the following legally regulated services:

• Accommodation for persons who require treatment for substance misuse

CQC registered Right Start Rehabilitation subject to the following terms:

The registered provider must only accommodate a maximum of four service users at Right Start Rehabilitation

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 

During our inspection, we raised serious concerns with the registered manager about the environment within the building and the findings of two external audits regarding fire and legionella risks. Following this conversation, the registered manager took the decision to find alternative accommodation for the service users until such time that the building was made safe and actions from external audits were completed.

The service has since de-registered from providing regulated activity.

Updated 24 October 2018

We did not rate this service. Since July 2018, CQC has had the powers to rate substance misuse services provided by the independent sector. Planning for this inspection started before that date.

We found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

• The registered manager had not ensured the the environment of the building was safe for service users and staff. They had not acted on serious environmental risks including those identified by external assessors of risk of fire and legionella. They had not identified environmental risks, including ligature risks, thoroughly or recorded actions taken to reduce the risks. 
• Staffing levels were not sufficient to safely run the service. There were not enough staff to ensure safe management of the service and there was no cover for staff sickness. Staff within the service received inconsistent levels of training and were not trained in the Mental Capacity Act. 
• Staff did not document a thorough assessment of service users prior to or, on admission to the service. Care records lacked information and detail of historical and current risks to physical and mental health. There were information gaps on prescription charts, including who had prescribed the medication. 
• The registered manager had not implemented effective governance processes or procedures in within the service. Staff did not routinely carry out audits of the environment or record keeping. Many of the policies and procedures used within the service were out of date or not applicable to the service. 
• The service did not effectively promote privacy and dignity for people using the service. The layout of the environment and internal building work meant that service users rooms were not private. There was no effective separation of male and female facilities. 

However, we found the following areas of good practice:

• Staff we spoke with were happy in their roles and enjoyed working for the service. Staff worked well together and maintained good relationships with external providers involved with service users care. Staff were very service user focused and worked with them in a person-centred way. 
• The service offered interventions recommended by The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Service users fed back positively about the therapy programme and told us the service and staff helped them with their recovery.  
• Staff treated service users with care and respect and listened to and acted on their feedback. Staff enabled service users to make decisions about their treatment and care plans included patient views. All service users fed positively about the way staff treated them.