• Residential substance misuse service

Archived: Rekindling House

2 Marsh Road, Luton, Bedfordshire, LU3 2NH (01582) 456556

Provided and run by:
Rekindling Limited

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 31 October 2016

Rekindling House opened in 2013. It is a residential setting in Luton, which offers detoxification from drugs and/or alcohol. There is on- going abstinence based treatment, which includes group therapy, individual counselling and support in life skills. They can accommodate up to nine clients.

The Registered Manager is Margaret Jordan.

Clients referred were privately funded or have funding approved by statutory organisations. Regulated activities are accommodation for persons who require treatment for substance misuse. The CQC carried out an inspection on 07 January 2015. The provider did not meet the following standards:

Care and welfare of people who use services

Management of medicines

Supporting workers

The provider was required to send a report setting out the action they will take to meet the standards. The report detailing the actions completed was provided.

Overall inspection

Updated 31 October 2016

We do not currently rate independent standalone substance misuse services.

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

  • Staff were not clear on their roles and responsibilities for incident reporting. Staff had not reported any incidents on the incident reporting forms since 2015.Staff had not received regular training around safeguarding of children.

  • It was unclear what training was mandatory for staff.

  • Staff were not trained Mental Capacity Act 2005(MCA). There was no policy in place for staff to refer too.

  • Staff did not monitor blood pressure, pulse and temperature. The off-site acupuncturist did this.

  • Staff recruitment files were not up to date. There was no risk assessment in place for three staff, where previous offences recorded on a disclosure barring system were identified. There was a lack of references for staff in post, one with no dates and relationship details and one worker with a reference from fellow peer worker. Not all staff had a job description.

  • The service had no established links with advocacy services, and relied upon local agencies such as the Citizen’s Advice Bureau.

  • There was a lack of effective governance structure and leadership, with no quality assurance management or frameworks in place to monitor the quality of the service.

  • The service did not have visitors due to a past incident. There was no date to review this.

  • Clients do not have access to activities outside of the service.

However, we found the following areas of good practice:

  • Clients told us they were treated in a positive and supportive way and felt safe using the service.

  • Regular house meetings took place for both clients and staff.

  • The service had introduced an electronic daily notes system.

  • Regular staff meetings took place, and minutes were recorded.