Reset Treatment and Recovery Support Service - Tower Hamlets

This means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

The service had systems and processes that supported safe care and treatment, and staff understood their responsibilities in managing risk. People told us they felt safe using the service, and most referrals were triaged promptly. Pathways were documented, including prison release referrals, and leaders maintained oversight through governance meetings.

Patient Group Directions (PGDs) were incomplete, some expired and signed retrospectively, and there was no clear list of authorised staff, as required by law. The environment did not consistently protect privacy: conversations could be overheard, between rooms. Caseloads were high, affecting timely interventions despite sufficient staffing and specialist roles.

Audits showed high compliance with prescription security and benzodiazepine prescribing standards. Policies and SOPs were in place, naloxone was offered routinely, and opioid substitution and alcohol detox pathways followed national guidance.

The service had systems and processes that supported safe care and treatment, and staff understood their responsibilities in managing risk. People told us they felt safe using the service, and most referrals were triaged promptly. Pathways were documented, including prison release referrals, and leaders maintained oversight through governance meetings.

Safeguarding training compliance was high, and staff contributed to multi-agency arrangements. However, oversight required improvement: one record lacked follow-up, safeguarding was not a standing agenda item, and 183 reviews were overdue, although measures to address this were in place.

Some areas for good practise development were identified. Patient Group Directions (PGDs) were incomplete, some expired and signed retrospectively, and there was no clear list of authorised staff, as required by law. The environment did not consistently protect privacy: conversations could be overheard between rooms. Caseloads were high, affecting timely interventions despite sufficient staffing and specialist roles.