Stockton Recovery Service

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

This means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last inspection we rated well-led as good. At this inspection, the rating has remained good. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, and experience to perform their roles. Staff knew and understood the provider’s vision and values and how they applied to the work of their team. Staff felt respected, supported, and valued. Governance processes operated effectively. Performance and risk were managed well. Teams had access to the information they needed to provide safe and effective care. Staff collected analysed data about outcomes and performance. They used this to identify improvements.

We have not awarded this service a score for Well-led.

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

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had a shared vision, strategy, and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Staff we spoke with knew and understood the provider’s vision and values and how they were applied in the work of their team. The provider’s senior leadership team had successfully communicated the provider’s vision and values to the frontline staff in this service.

The provider’s mission was “to transform lives by providing services built on evidence and compassion, rooted in the communities it served”. Its vision was “a world where people are seen for their potential, not judged for their problems”.

The provider’s values of being open, bold, and compassionate were promoted and embedded within service delivery:

• Being open – fostering transparency, learning, and honest communication
• Being bold – innovating and adapting services to meet complex need
• Being compassionate – placing people at the centre of care and decision-making.

Managers reinforced these values through supervision, team meetings, and leadership behaviours, ensuring staff understood how their role contributed to improving outcomes.

Equality, diversity and inclusion was promoted within the service’s day to day work via:

• Training and workforce development
• Service design and targeted provision for underserved groups
• Use of equality impact assessments to inform decision-making
• Active monitoring of access and outcomes across different population groups
• The providers equality, diversity and inclusion policies and procedures.

Managers promoted staff engagement and provided a range of opportunities for staff to contribute to service development and improvement, including team meetings, staff forums and workshops, anonymous staff surveys and exit interviews and participation in audits, reviews, and quality improvement activity

Staff were encouraged to share ideas, identify improvements, and influence service delivery. Learning from feedback, incidents, and performance data was openly shared, supporting a culture of collective ownership and continuous improvement.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience, and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness, and honesty.

Leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles.

Leaders within the service provided clinical leadership to staff. The service had a clear, well-governed multidisciplinary clinical leadership structure, supported locally, regionally, and organisationally.

The clinical lead (doctor) provided medical oversight and supervised non-medical prescribers. A lead nurse oversaw nurses and healthcare assistants, and a clinical lead psychologist oversaw psychological interventions, reflective practice, and workforce development.

Clinical leadership was embedded through regional clinical governance meetings, multidisciplinary team meetings and supervision.

Leaders had a good understanding of the services they managed. They could explain clearly how the teams were working to provide high quality care.

Leaders were visible in the service and approachable for clients and staff.

Leadership development opportunities were available, including for staff not currently in a management role. The provider had a well-developed learning and development facility, enabling leaders at all levels to develop skills, confidence, and capability. Staff within the service had completed key organisational programmes, including leading together and developing together. These programmes focussed on leadership development, team effectiveness and culture change; supporting leaders to embed organisational values and drive service improvement.

Leaders were further supported through a team leader curriculum, access to apprenticeships and funded qualifications, mentoring and coaching schemes, motivational interviewing training, trauma-informed care approaches and observed and reflective practice for managers.

Managers were aware of the need to ensure effective succession planning was in place so that the future effectiveness of the service was assured. Succession planning was supported through a range of structured workforce development pathways. The service offered student placements for social workers and nurses, supporting future workforce supply and building relationships with newly qualified staff. There was a well-established volunteer pathway, with clear progression routes into paid roles, helping to grow a sustainable workforce with lived experience.

The psychology team was developing training pathways for counselling psychologists, strengthening specialist provision.

Staff were supported through a comprehensive apprenticeship programme, offering funded qualifications from Level 2 through to degree-level leadership programmes which supported skills development, career progression, and long-term retention.

When Office for Health Improvement and Disparities funding was delivered through short-term grant cycles, a decision was made to offer permanent contracts to staff. This ensured stability, continuity of care, and the ability to recruit and retain staff.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The service had policies and procedures to support whistleblowing and the freedom to speak up. Staff understood these policies and protocols and felt comfortable using them without fear of reprisals.

Managers promoted an open and honest culture. A clear raising concern process was in place, enabling staff to raise concerns through multiple routes, including line management, supervision, governance processes, and organisational reporting systems. Locally, this culture was embedded through the service manager’s open-door policy, and team meetings and daily communication, providing regular opportunities to speak up.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them.

The provider promoted inclusion through equality, diversity and inclusion networks, forums, and inclusion champions, enabling staff to share experiences, influence policy, and shape service delivery. The service was recognised as a Stonewall LGBT+ inclusive employer (Silver Award), had adopted the Race Equality Code, staff were trained in anti-racism and unconscious bias, and the service was recognised as a disability confident employer with a strong focus on accessibility and tailored support.

Staff contributed to local and national equality, diversity and inclusion initiatives, including participating in awareness events and forums.

Leaders promoted an open and inclusive culture. This was evidenced in the most recent staff survey in which 91% of staff reported being able to be themselves at work, alongside 100% compliance with equality, diversity and inclusion training.

Staff were able to apply to work flexibly to account for personal circumstances such as caring responsibilities and health issues.

Managers put reasonable adjustments in place for staff members to help them carry out their role. These included:

• Regular home working arrangements to support staff with mobility needs
• Creation of a quiet room to support neurodivergent staff
• Reduction of caseloads and protected time for clinical notes, supporting wellbeing and performance.

The provider undertook equality monitoring of staff within the service to ensure it was diverse in its make-up and representative of the client group.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment, and support. They act on the best information about risk, performance, and outcomes, and share this securely with others when appropriate.

The governance and management oversight within the service was effective. There were systems and procedures to ensure that the service premises was safe and clean, that there were enough experienced, trained and skilled staff, and that staff received supervision. Clients were assessed and clients we spoke with told us staff treated them well. Staff adhered to the Mental Capacity Act and involved mental health services when required to meet clients’ needs. Staff managed flow well and discharges were planned. Incidents, safeguarding concerns and complaints were reported, investigated and learnt from. Staff followed safe and effective medicines managements processes in terms of prescribing and storage of emergency medications.

Governance was embedded through a structured local governance framework, aligned with organisational governance groups. There were monthly senior leadership meetings to oversee quality, safety, performance, safeguarding, and risk. Weekly huddles and daily ‘flash’ meetings supported real-time management of operational safety and client risk. Multidisciplinary team meetings and supervision structures ensured clinical oversight and safe decision-making

The service also adopted a structured quality improvement approach, using the model for improvement and plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles to test and embed change. PDSA is a method of evaluation that allows you to test the impact of an initiative and continuously learn from your experiences, whilst improving your approach.

There was a clear framework of what must be discussed at team or directorate level in team meetings to ensure that essential information, such as learning from incidents and complaints, was shared and discussed.

Staff had implemented recommendations from reviews of deaths, incidents, complaints and safeguarding alerts at the service level.

Staff undertook or participated in local clinical audits. The audits were sufficient to provide assurance and staff acted on the results when needed.

Staff understood the arrangements for working with other teams, both within the provider and externally, to meet the needs of the clients.

Staff maintained and had access to the risk register at local and national level. Staff could escalate concerns when required. The service currently had 1 active risk recorded on the local risk register which related to potential disruption to service delivery.

The service had business continuity plans for emergencies such as adverse weather, loss of IT systems, bomb or fire scares or flu outbreaks.

The service used systems to collect data from directorates that were not over-burdensome for frontline staff.

Staff had access to the equipment and information technology needed to do their work. The information technology infrastructure, including the telephone system, worked well and helped to improve the quality of care.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of client records.

Team managers had access to information to support them with their management role. This included information on the performance of the service, staffing and client care.

Information was in an accessible format, and was timely, accurate and identified areas for improvement.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service clearly understood and carried out their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, and services worked seamlessly for people. They always shared information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement.

Directorate leaders engaged with external stakeholders such as commissioners and the local authority. Clients and staff could meet with members of the provider’s senior leadership team and commissioners to give feedback. Feedback from external partners such as local authority safeguarding teams and commissioners was positive and evidenced that staff within the service worked with them in a collaborative way to support client care and treatment.

The service worked with partner agencies and local third sector organisations to promote joined up care and facilitate engagement and access. This included primary and secondary healthcare services, the local authority and criminal justice services.

The service took part in local community activities such as Pride events and recovery walks.

Staff supported individuals to access a wide range of community and support services. The service was co-located within a wellbeing hub, which provided a neutral, community-based environment. This supported engagement by reducing stigma and enabling cross-partnership working, with access to integrated support including mental health, housing, employment, financial advice, and social support. This helped clients access multiple services in one place and improved engagement.

Where individuals experienced social isolation, staff actively encouraged engagement with community-based support such as Andy’s Man Club, a peer-led group supporting men’s mental health and wellbeing.

Staff encouraged and supported clients to access mutual aid groups, which supported individuals to establish ongoing peer support networks beyond the service.

The service delivered the accredited M-PACT (Moving Parents and Children Together) programme, working directly with families to improve communication, strengthen relationships, and reduce the impact of substance use on children and young people.

At an organisational level, the National Lived Experience Group (NLEG) represented diverse voices from across the UK and played a key role in shaping services, policy, and strategy. The group contributed to co-production, supported recruitment and governance processes, and ensured lived experience perspectives influenced decision-making at all levels. Locally, the service contributed to this work through representation within NLEG (in recruitment process) and through ongoing involvement of lived experience volunteers in service feedback, development discussions, and engagement activities.

The service delivered multi-agency targeted outreach in hotspot areas, focussing on individuals who were homeless or street drinking. This included joint working with partners and peer-led engagement, enabling the service to build trust with individuals who might not engage through traditional routes. Outreach included offering facilitated referrals and access to warm spaces, supporting individuals to engage in a safe and accessible way.

The service had a dedicated lead for vulnerable women, who worked closely with partner organisations to provide coordinated trauma-informed support. This included the delivery of women-only groups, creating a safe and supportive environment for engagement.

Staff worked closely with criminal justice services. Recovery coordinators were co-located within probation services to engage with individuals on community orders and support continuity of care.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome, and quality of life for people. They actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

Staff were given the time and support to discuss opportunities for improvements and innovation during team meetings and supervision and appraisal sessions.

Innovations were taking place in the service. The service contributed to a system-wide innovation to reduce drug-related deaths, launched in June 2026 with Not on My Watch and local hostel providers. This included supporting the rollout of a wearable overdose prevention device that alerted emergency services in the event of an overdose. The service identified and engaged high-risk individuals through established hospital and ambulance service pathways. It also ensured that anyone experiencing a non-fatal overdose was supported through the local overdose pathway and escalated for multidisciplinary review where appropriate. This partnership-led approach demonstrated innovative use of technology and data to proactively manage risk and improve safety for vulnerable individuals.

Staff used quality improvement methods and knew how to apply them. These included regular audit activity, review of service data and outcomes, and analysis of client, partner, and staff feedback. Findings were used to identify themes, risks, and areas for improvement.

Quality and performance were overseen through a structured governance framework, including senior leadership team meetings where risk, performance, and improvement actions were regularly reviewed and challenged. A recent example of quality improvement was the service remodelling process, informed by commissioner engagement, audit findings, and review of service data, outcomes, and stakeholder feedback. This had been undertaken in response to financial changes and focussed on maintaining safe, effective, and sustainable service delivery within the available resources.