Reset Treatment and Recovery Support Service - Tower Hamlets

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 best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

People received care and treatment that reflected current evidence and supported their recovery. They told us staff listened, helped them understand their goals, and offered flexible assessments tailored to individual needs. Staff used structured first-contact processes that explored substance use, mental health, physical health and social context, and offered home visits or phone assessments to reduce barriers. Risk was identified and escalated promptly, and multidisciplinary forums supported timely safety planning. Care plans were generally up to date, and people described interventions such as trauma workshops, acupuncture and motivational interviewing that helped improve wellbeing. Staff worked with external partners, including GPs, housing agencies and mental health services, and people said these arrangements helped them feel supported and connected to care. Staff delivered evidence-based care and followed structured protocols for prescribing, including methadone and buprenorphine, and policies were reviewed regularly.

Clinical risks were identified and escalated appropriately, and staff described examples of assertive engagement leading to sustained recovery. People were supported to live healthier lives through tailored interventions and reasonable adjustments, including women’s clinics and outreach to hostels. Staff promoted harm reduction and health improvement, and partnerships were used to deliver targeted interventions for groups such as the Bengali community and people experiencing homelessness. The service monitored outcomes and acted on what it learned, using performance data and feedback to inform improvement plans. Leaders tracked retention and completion rates and compared them with benchmarks, and governance records showed actions to address gaps. People told us they were given clear explanations about their care and treatment and that consent was sought before any intervention. Staff described a strong focus on collaborative working and informed decision-making, and training compliance for the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards was high.

However, the service was consistently performing below its own benchmark for ‘successful completions’ and the national average. The service was using performance data to understand the reasons for this and to refine its pathways and improve outcomes. Some people reported miscommunication about group sessions and said calendar information was not always shared, which suggests internal coordination could be improved to support consistency in care. Staff described challenges in partnership working, particularly with mental health services, where substance misuse was sometimes used as a reason to decline support.