Stockton Recovery Service

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 means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last inspection, we rated this key question good. At this inspection, the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

Staff treated clients with compassion and kindness. They respected clients’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of clients and supported clients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff involved clients in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

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.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with clients evidenced that they were discreet, respectful and responsive. Staff provided clients with help, emotional support and advice.

We spoke with 6 clients separately and another 6 together as a group during our inspection. Feedback from all 12 clients was overwhelmingly positive. Clients said staff treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them. Comments from clients included:

• “I put my trust in the service and that trust wasn’t wasted”
• “My keyworker is helpful”
• “They worked with social services and helped me get my kids back”
• “Staff are ‘mint’”
• “Everyone treats you so well here, no judgement and they make you feel welcome”
• “The service and staff are perfect”
• “Staff have been brilliant”
• “They’ve helped me to rebuild my relationship with my parents and children”
• “The groups the service run are so important to us”

We also spoke with the relative of a client who said:

• “They are absolutely brilliant. They have been fantastic with my family member. They gave her good and clear advice. They have been supportive of me and provide me with regular updates and advice”

Clients told us that staff supported them to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition.

We saw evidence in care records that staff directed clients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services.

Staff understood the individual needs of clients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs.

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards clients without fear of the consequences.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about clients. Staff completed information governance training which included the need to manage client information in line with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

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, goals, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff made adjustments for people with mobility issues and by meeting clients’ specific communication needs. Clients could be seen at other places in the community and staff supported clients to have access to advocacy, signers and interpreters when needed.

Staff ensured that clients could obtain information on treatments, local services, clients’ rights, and how to make a complaint. The areas of the building used by clients contained a variety of literature to support them in their care and treatment and in managing their daily life.

Information could be provided in different formats to meet the needs of individual clients such as different languages or easy read. Managers ensured that staff and clients had easy access to interpreters and signers.

Staff ensured recovery plans included their strengths, goals and any equality and diversity information pertaining to the client and how they wanted to be treated.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment, and wellbeing.

Staff offered clients alternative treatment options if they were unable to comply with specific treatment requirements, such as buprenorphine as an alternative to methadone.

Choice and flexibility were supported through a range of appointment options. The service offered appointments across different times, including extended hours (such as late evening provision), and through a variety of delivery methods including face-to-face, telephone, online, and outreach-based appointments. Outreach provision enabled staff to meet people in community venues, family centres, partner agencies, or in their own homes where there was a clear need, such as mobility issues or caring responsibilities. This approach reduced barriers to engagement and supported individuals to access care in a way that suited their circumstances.

When clients disengaged or missed appointments, staff followed a structured did-not-attend pathway, seeking to understand barriers and re-engage the person in a supportive and non-judgemental way. This included reviewing and adapting appointment arrangements to better meet their needs and preferences.

Staff signposted clients to supportive services within the community such as mutual aid groups and the service’s partner organisation for psychosocial intervention strategies.

Staff supported clients to maintain relationships with their friends and family.

Staff supported clients to access activities and the local community to promote and support their independence, health, and wellbeing.

Staff supported and enabled clients to have choice and control over their own care and to make decisions about their care, treatment, and wellbeing. We saw evidence in care records that staff involved clients in the development and review of their care plans.

We saw evidence in care records that staff supported clients to develop their recovery capital and personal strengths.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern, or distress.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, clients. Care records evidenced that staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, such as physical or mental health concerns and care planned for these accordingly.

We saw evidence in care records that staff encouraged clients to take naloxone home with them to mitigate the risk of death from overdosing on opiate drugs.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service always cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and was exceptional at supporting and enabling staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They felt positive and proud about working for the provider and their team.

Staff morale and wellbeing were monitored via one-to-one supervision, team meetings, and daily operational discussions. Organisational approaches such as staff surveys, the workers forums, and exit interviews were also used to gather insight and inform continuous improvement.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service. They had access to an employee assistance programme and, a weekly paid wellbeing hour to support personal resilience. Additional psychological support was available through the provider’s Schwartz Rounds, offering a safe space for staff to reflect on the emotional impact of their work and strengthen peer support. Staff had access to enhanced trauma-informed support. This included fortnightly external trauma-informed supervision on-site where staff could reflect on complex cases in a safe and structured environment. Staff also accessed a weekly psychology drop-in session with the in-house consultant psychologist, providing an accessible forum to discuss caseload pressures, clinical approaches, and the emotional impact of delivering care.

Staff feedback was gathered through the February 2026 staff survey which achieved a 75% response rate. Results highlighted strong clarity and purpose within roles, with high levels of understanding of expectations and how individual roles contributed to organisational success. Team relationships were also identified as a key strength.

Areas for development included visibility and communication from senior leadership, and confidence that feedback leads to change. In response, director-level engagement had increased, including attendance at team meetings, service visits, and one-to-one discussions with staff. Survey findings informed a local action plan, with outcomes shared and discussed with the senior leadership team and in team meetings to close feedback loops and ensure staff feedback directly informed service improvements. The survey was externally administered, ensuring anonymity and supporting open engagement. This supported improved communication, engagement, and staff confidence.

The provider recognised staff success within the service. Staff contributions and success were recognised locally and organisationally through team meetings, an online recognition platform, and communication forums, which helped to build morale and celebrate good practice.

Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported.

Staff followed clear personal safety protocols, including for lone working.