Reset Treatment and Recovery Support Service - Tower Hamlets

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

The service provided care and treatment that reflected people’s individual needs and preferences. People told us staff supported them with practical help, such as moving into a “dry house,” and offered interventions that fitted their circumstances, including online sessions for mothers and couples counselling. Staff tailored support to different stages of recovery and worked with people at any point in their treatment journey, signposting to services such as housing, mental health and criminal justice pathways. We observed strong partnership working with hostels and mental health teams, and bespoke outreach with Somali women, including co-produced training and community newsletters. These partnerships widened recovery options and helped overcome barriers to engagement.

People were involved in planning and review of their care. Staff used motivational interviewing to explore goals and reviewed plans after each contact. Leaders ran monthly co-production forums and pulse surveys to gather feedback, and changes were made to the case management system so multiple staff involved in someone’s care were visible. The service made reasonable adjustments, such as home visits for people with mobility needs and outreach to hostels, which helped those at higher risk of disengagement remain in treatment. Staff reviewed risk regularly and escalated safeguarding concerns promptly, and complex cases were discussed in multidisciplinary meetings.

People told us they were happy with the care provided and valued staff with lived experience, which helped them feel understood. Carers reported joined-up working with other agencies, and care records showed evidence of information-sharing agreements in most cases. People said they received information in a way they could understand, and staff used interpreters and provided leaflets in different languages. Complaints processes were clear, and people felt confident to raise concerns. Feedback was gathered through surveys, suggestion boxes and QR codes, and learning from complaints was shared in team meetings. Flexible appointment times, weekend support and outreach clinics improved access, and initiatives such as evening clinics for women and people involved in sex work helped reduce inequalities. People told us they felt treated equally, and staff had completed equality and diversity training. Leaders monitored outcomes and acted on feedback, introducing improvements such as increased Hepatitis C testing and enhanced recovery pathways.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

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

The service provided care and treatment that reflected people’s individual needs and preferences. People told us staff supported them to access practical help that mattered to them, including help to move into a “dry house”, and offered interventions that fitted their circumstances, such as online sessions for mothers and couples counselling. People also reported receiving twice‑monthly text messages to discuss their care and treatment, which helped maintain engagement.

Staff and leaders described how support was tailored to different stages of recovery. Leaders explained that staff worked with people at any point in their treatment journey and signposted to other services when needed, including aftercare focused on reintegration through employment, education and training. Staff told us they made referrals to other services such as mental health teams and GPs, and liaised with housing and criminal justice pathways when appropriate. Inspectors observed strong partnership working with hostels and mental health teams, and bespoke outreach with Somali women that included co‑produced training and a community newsletter in Somali shared through social media. These partnerships widened recovery options and helped overcome barriers to engagement.

The service made reasonable adjustments so people could access care. Leaders gave an example of adapting support for a blind person to ensure they could attend treatment safely. Staff described weekly outreach to hostels and homeless hubs, and liaison with pharmacies when people missed medication collections. These adjustments helped people at higher risk of disengagement to remain in treatment.

Leaders had introduced system changes to show all staff involved in someone’s care, and staff described using tagging systems to prioritise reviews and maintain contact schedules.

People told us they were generally very happy with the care provided and described the service as offering structure that supported their recovery. This is important because structured support helps people maintain engagement and reduces the risk of relapse. Several people highlighted that staff had lived experience, which they valued because it helped them feel understood and supported. When people feel understood, they are more likely to trust the service and continue with treatment, which can improve outcomes.

Carers reported that the service worked in a joined-up way with them and with other agencies, which they felt supported continuity of care. Joined up working matters because when agencies share information and coordinate care, people experience fewer gaps and delays, reducing risks associated with missed appointments or unmanaged withdrawal.

Two people told us they had experienced changes in their keyworker, which affected continuity for them. Continuity of keyworker is important because changes can disrupt therapeutic relationships and make it harder for people to stay engaged with treatment, increasing the risk of disengagement.

Staff explained that leaders aimed to allocate the same worker who completed the initial assessment to maintain consistency. This approach matters because having the same worker from assessment onwards helps build trust and ensures that care planning is informed by a consistent understanding of the person’s needs.

Care records we reviewed showed evidence of information sharing agreements in 6 out of 7 cases, including details of agencies and next of kin. We saw agreements with local borough teams such as the Drug Intervention Programme – Hidden Harm Coordinator, and Substance Misuse Pathway. There were also agreements with Integrated Offender Management and pathways into the Pan London Substance Misuse programme and local pharmacies. These arrangements are important because effective information sharing ensures that all relevant professionals have access to accurate and timely details about a person’s care, reducing the risk of errors, duplication, or missed safeguarding concerns.

Leaders discussed ongoing work with the community at contract monitoring meetings, which partners confirmed. This matters because regular engagement with partners helps maintain integrated pathways and ensures that services adapt to local needs, supporting continuity for people who may require input from multiple agencies.

Everyone we spoke with told us they received information in a way they could understand and felt confident to ask questions if they needed clarification. This is important because when people understand the information given, they can make informed decisions about their care and feel more in control of their treatment.

Staff described giving leaflets in languages people understood and using interpreters where necessary. They also explained that Somali-speaking staff were able to communicate directly with people whose first language was not English. These adjustments matter because they reduce barriers to understanding and ensure people receive accurate information about their treatment and options.

Staff demonstrated they understood consent and when information needed to be shared. This is important because clear processes for consent protect people’s rights and ensure information is shared appropriately to support safe and coordinated care.

We saw that staff were able to book interpreters through an external service when required. This matters because timely access to interpretation helps people who do not speak English fluently to understand their treatment and ask questions, reducing the risk of misunderstanding or disengagement.

The provider’s improvement plan included actions to develop a peripatetic community satellite treatment and recovery model within homeless hostels and review community spaces to support service delivery. These actions aim to improve accessibility and the experience of people using the service. For example, weekly satellite clinics were already in place, and care and advice sessions were held regularly in community settings. Delivery also took place from the young people’s service, and plans were being explored for additional sites. This is important because providing information about these options helps people access treatment in locations that meet their needs and reduces barriers to engagement.

We also saw evidence of reasonable adjustments being made, such as home visits for people receiving palliative care and for medical reviews where people lived in supported accommodation. These adjustments matter because they ensure people receive information and care in a way that is accessible and responsive to their circumstances.

People told us staff responded quickly when they raised worries or problems and said they felt confident to complain if necessary. They understood the complaints procedure and told us forms were available if they wanted to use them. People also said they could speak with staff in private rooms where conversations could not be overheard. This is important because having clear and accessible ways to raise concerns helps people feel safe and respected, and private spaces protect confidentiality.

People told us staff listened carefully to them and to carers, and they had opportunities to give feedback about the service. This matters because when people feel heard, they are more likely to share concerns early, which supports timely resolution and improves trust in the service.

Staff described how complaints were often raised during conversations with service users and recorded on the case management system. They explained that concerns could also be escalated through supervision or morning meetings, which were recorded. Leaders told us they used a staged process for complaints, with oversight from senior staff and governance leads. Complaints and compliments were reviewed monthly and discussed in integrated team meetings. This is important because structured processes ensure complaints are tracked, investigated, and learning is shared, reducing the risk of repeated issues.

We saw evidence of learning from complaints and incidents being discussed in team meetings and learning and development sessions. For example, following a complaint about scripts being handed out in a public area, staff were reminded to use private spaces. This matters because acting on feedback helps prevent recurrence and improves people’s experience of care.

Leaders had delivered a presentation on service user feedback, which identified previous inconsistencies in responding to formal complaints, including delays and missing acknowledgment letters. The presentation outlined local processes introduced to address these issues. This is important because timely and consistent responses to complaints maintain trust and demonstrate accountability.

People had opportunities to give feedback through pulse surveys, suggestion boxes, and posters with QR codes linking to live feedback forms. Meeting minutes showed updates on co-production and survey results were discussed. These arrangements matter because they give people multiple ways to share their views, supporting continuous improvement and ensuring services reflect what people need.

People told us the service offered flexible appointment times and provided contact numbers for urgent, or out-of-hours help. They said staff signposted them to other services when needed and could make referrals to social services or early help. Weekend support was also available. Flexible appointment options and clear pathways to support, help remove barriers to treatment and make it easier for people to get help when they need it.

Staff described how they provided information in digital formats and printed leaflets in different languages. They explained that interpreters could be booked when required and that staff who spoke Somali and Bengali were available to support people with language needs. These arrangements help people who do not speak English fluently to understand their care and remain engaged with treatment.

Staff told us they considered individual preferences, such as whether someone wanted to work with a male or female staff member, and matched people with staff who had relevant experience or additional knowledge where possible. This supports personalised care and helps people feel comfortable accessing services.

We saw evidence of adjustments for physical access, including a lift and an evacuation chair for emergencies. The provider’s risk register showed that lift reliability was monitored, and mitigations were in place, such as using alternative sites, video appointments, and community spaces when the lift was out of service. These measures ensure people with mobility needs can continue to access care safely.

Leaders described initiatives to improve access for specific groups, including evening clinics for women and people involved in sex work, and outreach in community locations. They also highlighted work to engage diverse communities, including those who may experience stigma or anxiety about attending the main site. These actions help reduce inequalities and make services more accessible to people who might otherwise avoid treatment.

The provider’s website included details of available support, timetables, referral processes, and contact numbers. It also linked to translation options and online recovery activities. Accessible online information helps people understand what is available and how to access it, supporting equity for those who cannot attend in person.

People told us they were very happy with the service and their keyworker and described the delivery of care as outstanding. They said they felt treated equally, which helps build trust and confidence in the service.

We observed a legal advice surgery on-site offering free weekly support for housing, debt and welfare issues. The service also signposts people to this clinic for immigration advice. Access to specialist legal support helps people address wider social challenges that can affect recovery and wellbeing.

Staff gave examples of improvements made to treatment pathways. When leaders identified low rates of Hepatitis C testing, they introduced weekly meetings, staff champions and support from the Hepatitis C Trust. This led to a significant increase in testing and improved staff confidence. Early identification and treatment of Hepatitis C reduce health risks and improves long-term outcomes for people using the service.

Leaders also reminded assessment staff to refer people to the recovery service, which offers access to additional support such as employment services alongside peer groups. Making these referrals ensures people can benefit from a wider range of opportunities that support recovery and social inclusion.

Training records showed all staff had completed equality and diversity training, and some had undertaken additional courses on accessibility and communication, including deaf awareness and disability workshops. This helps staff understand and respond to individual needs, promoting equitable experiences for everyone using the service.

People told us they had opportunities for volunteering and mentoring, which they said gave them a sense of purpose. They also said keyworkers supported them to look at goals, helping them plan for their recovery and future aspirations.

Leaders described a workshop called “Being with Dying,” available both in person and online, which supports engagement with people approaching end of life. While the service is not commissioned to provide end-of-life care, we saw evidence of a client receiving palliative care through home visits. This demonstrates flexibility in meeting individual needs and maintaining continuity of care.

We reviewed a statutory notification following the death of a person using the service. Learning identified from this included a lack of clarity in pathways for individuals with accessibility challenges. Actions taken included improving links with Age Concern and the Older Adults Social Care Team to upskill staff and strengthen partnership working. The provider planned to theme a future governance meeting around accessibility to substance misuse services, focusing on expected standards of care for housebound individuals. Creating a clear pathway for staff supports consistent care for people with complex needs.

The notification also outlined work to improve accessibility locally. This included refreshing staff knowledge on medical review standards for people with complex health histories, securing additional funding for a frontline worker specialising in older adult opiate users, and appointing two complex needs workers. Prescribing capacity had been increased, and the service was exploring opportunities to deliver prescribing clinics in community settings. An opiate-only open access clinic had also been introduced for people seeking treatment. These improvements increase flexibility and widen access to treatment for people with varied requirements.