Stockton Recovery Service

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

This means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on the best available evidence.

At our last inspection we rated effective as good. At this inspection, the rating has remained good.

Staff assessed the physical and mental health of all clients. They developed individual care plans which were reviewed regularly through multidisciplinary discussion and updated as needed. Staff provided a range of treatment and care for clients based on national guidance and best practice. The team included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of clients using the service. Staff from different disciplines worked together as a team to benefit clients.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

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

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs with them.

We reviewed 10 care records during our inspection.

Staff completed a comprehensive assessment of each client’s needs including history of substance misuse.

Staff made sure that clients had a full physical health assessment and knew about any physical health problems.

Staff developed a comprehensive care plan for each client that met their mental and physical health needs. Care plans were personalised, holistic and recovery-orientated and identified the client’s keyworker. Staff regularly reviewed and updated care plans when clients' needs changed.

The service operated a daily open-access model so there were no waiting lists in place. This included same-day triage and, where clinically appropriate, same-day prescribing, supporting immediate engagement and reducing risks associated with delay.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff provided a range of care and treatment interventions suitable for the client group. The interventions were those recommended by, and were delivered in line with, guidance from NICE. These included:

• Motivational interviewing
• Trauma informed care
• Psychosocial interventions
• Dialectical behaviour therapy
• Coping skills
• Substitute prescribing
• Peer-support groups and meetings
• Detoxification
• Rehabilitation

Staff ensured that clients had good access to physical healthcare, including access to specialists when needed.

Staff routinely offered blood borne virus testing to clients and supported them to access treatment for any viruses detected.

Staff participated in clinical audit, benchmarking and quality improvement initiatives. Audits included infection prevention and control, health and safety, IT security, data protection, patient group directions, medicines and prescription management. These audits were effective in identifying areas for improvement and ensuring the safe running of the service.

The team included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of clients in the service. They included nurses, recovery workers, non-medical prescribers, recovery harm minimisation workers, a clinical lead doctor, children and young people workers, a young adults worker, social workers and outreach workers.

Staff were experienced and qualified and had the right skills and knowledge to meet the needs of the client group.

Managers provided new staff with an appropriate.

Managers provided staff with supervision (meetings to discuss case management, to reflect on and learn from practice, and for personal support and professional development) and an appraisal of their work performance. The percentage of staff that received regular supervision was 82%. The percentage of staff that had had an appraisal in the last 12 months was 71% for eligible staff. Compliance had been impacted by a system issue in July 2025 which resulted in the loss of some recorded appraisals, alongside a temporary slowdown in scheduling ahead of migration to the new learning and development platform in June 2026 to prevent further data loss.

Managers ensured that staff had access to regular team meetings.

Managers identified the learning needs of staff and provided them with opportunities to develop their skills and knowledge. Managers ensured that staff received the necessary specialist training for their roles. This included trauma-informed practice, blood borne virus awareness, and harm reduction.

The provider had a performance management system which supported managers to deal with poor staff performance promptly and effectively.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff held regular and effective multidisciplinary meetings. We saw evidence staff discussed ongoing appointments with clients, requested electrocardiograms and discussed possible group working and how this would benefit the client. We saw evidence that clients’ current housing situations were confirmed, and consideration was given to involving homeless prevention teams when required.

Staff shared information about clients at effective handover meetings within the team and with other services with shared care.

The teams had effective working relationships, including good handovers, with other relevant teams both within and outside the organisation.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice, and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff supported clients to live healthier lives. Staff provided smoking cessation advice. Clients participated in walking groups and healthy habits groups which focussed on food, sleep and exercise. Nurses carried out health screening and conducted medical reviews. Staff also did screening for cancer, blood borne viruses and provided advice to clients about managing their addictions in a safer way.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Staff used recognised rating scales to assess and record severity and outcomes. The primary tool used was the Treatment Outcomes Profile (TOP). Additional tools were used to inform assessment and intervention planning, including the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and the Severity of Alcohol Dependence Questionnaire (SADQ).

A broader range of outcome measures were monitored to capture wider impacts on health and wellbeing. These included non-fatal overdoses, drug-related hospital admissions, and mortality rates.

Staff used technology to support clients effectively. These included the provider’s care records systems and signposting clients to online self-help therapies.

Staff submitted reports about care and treatment outcomes to the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System (NDTMS).

The service’s overall successful completion rate for the 12 months prior to the inspection was 17%, compared to a national average of 22%. Whilst this was below the national benchmark, this measure was monitored alongside broader outcome measures, such as treatment progress measures introduced by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID), which provided a broader view of client outcomes and progress in treatment. When reviewing performance through this wider lens, the service aligned with national outcomes, with 46% of clients achieving substantial progress, consistent with the national average and demonstrating an upward trend locally. Performance also varied by cohort; for example, alcohol treatment outcomes were strong, with a successful completion rate of 36%, above the national average of 36%.

In terms of unsuccessful outcomes, unplanned discharge rates were 23% for the 12 months prior to the inspection which was in line with the average of 33 to 36%, indicating that disengagement was not disproportionately high.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff took all practical steps to enable clients to make their own decisions.

Staff assessed and recorded capacity to consent appropriately. They did this on a decision-specific basis with regard to significant decisions. When clients lacked capacity, staff sought advice from mental health services and made decisions in their best interests, recognising the importance of the person’s wishes, feelings, culture and history.

We saw evidence in care records that staff ensured clients had agreed and signed consent to treatment forms and that they were accessible to all staff involved in the client’s care and treatment. Care records also evidenced that staff ensured clients had agreed and signed confidentiality agreements in relation to who staff could share their personal information with, and they were accessible to all staff involved in the client’s care and treatment.

Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, in particular the five statutory principles. All staff within the service had completed Mental Capacity Act training. They were able to identify where mental capacity was a concern in a client consenting to treatment. The service had protocols and policies in place to manage clients whose capacity was temporarily impaired due to the use of illicit substances or inebriation.

Staff could contact local community mental health teams for advice and support.