We carried out a review of the data available to us about Charis Primary Programme on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Charis Primary Programme, you can give feedback on this service.
This is the first time we have rated this substance misuse service.
We rated Charis Primary Programme as outstanding because:
• The provider had made significant improvements to the service since our last inspection in November 2016.
• Staff and clients worked in collaboration to ensure the premises were safe, clean, well equipped, well furnished, exceptionally well maintained and fit to operate as a residential rehabilitation service. The provider delivered a safe, high quality, residential recovery programme for up to seven male clients with alcohol dependence and drug addiction issues. The programme is based on abstinence and follows the 12 steps approach through attending group work, individual key work and counselling for up to 26 weeks.
• The culture of clients’ needs coming first and foremost permeated throughout the service and was intrinsic to the way staff worked. This was evidenced in the person-centred care provided by the service and the way in which staff spoke about client care and treatment. Staff worked sensitively, consistently and in a well-informed way with clients to support them with all aspects of their recovery. Staff saw it as their work to foster and nurture an environment of trust, honesty, respect, support and generosity to help clients rebuild their lives.
• The manager was described by staff as ‘inspirational’ and ‘outstanding’. The manager and deputy manager were visible and accessible to clients and staff. They undertook unpleasant tasks in addition to their managerial duties, such as cleaning drains and emptying bins.
• Staff went to extraordinary lengths to ensure they promoted client’s self-esteem. This included purchasing high quality food to demonstrate to clients that they were worth ‘the best’. The service made sure clients did not go without essentials whilst they waited for their benefits to arrive. They did the same for those who had left the service who later needed a helping hand.
• Staff worked sensitively, consistently and in a well-informed way with clients to support them with all aspects of their recovery. Staff saw it as their work to foster and nurture an environment of trust, honesty, respect, support and generosity to help clients rebuild their lives.
• Feedback from clients was consistently positive throughout our discussions with them. In the annual survey of clients’ views, they rated the service at almost 100% positive in all categories.
• The service was open and committed to inclusively accept gay, bisexual and transgender clients (LGBT+) and black minority ethnic clients. All staff at the service had completed specific LGBT+ awareness training and there was a specific policy on dealing with prejudice. For example, this policy included information in relation to sexism and racial, sexual and gender identity prejudice and it emphasised the importance of respect and inclusivity.
• Most of the staff had worked for the service for many years and on average staff had 20+ years’ experience at the service and continued to show a high level of job satisfaction and passion within their role.
• The service had developed their own integrated approach in relation to the spiritual dimension of care, in line with their religious ethos. The manager told us other organisations had visited the service to learn from its approach.
We do not currently rate independent standalone substance misuse services.
We found the following areas of good practice:
The Charis Primary Programme facilitated recovery from alcoholism and drug addiction. The service provided therapy based on the twelve-step programme. The annual report for 2015 showed that two-thirds of clients achieved positive outcomes.
The service provided therapy to clients in a safe, clean, modern and well-maintained environment.
The director carried out risk assessments with each client before they were admitted. Staff carried out further assessments of risk, social circumstances and well-being when the client arrived at the service. The results of assessments were used to create individual recovery plans.
Staff at the service managed medicines and infection control well. The service had arranged for the GP practice to carry out screening for blood borne viruses during client’s initial assessment. Infection control information was provided for staff and clients and displayed within the building.
Feedback from clients was consistently positive throughout our interviews. In the annual survey of clients’ views, the service was rated at almost 100%.
Staff were committed to the service. They took on responsibility for being positive role models for clients. They were caring and understanding. Staff said that morale was good and the director was supportive.
However, we also found the following issue that the service provider needs to improve:
Whilst the staff’s approach to safeguarding reflected current good practice, it was not consistent with the organisation’s policy.
Staff did not make contemporaneous records of individual counselling sessions with clients.
Staff did not receive training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005
Is the service safe?
We saw records which showed all staff had attended training in safeguarding adults as part of their induction. All care workers and managers we spoke with demonstrated a good knowledge of the principles of safeguarding and gave us examples of raising concerns and of the provider following these concerns up. The staff we spoke with understood the procedures they needed to follow to ensure people were safe.
Risk assessments were in place within each person's care plans and staff worked in a manner which minimised such risks. Staff had received training which helped them to undertake their roles safely. Procedures for dealing with emergencies were in place and staff were able to describe these to us.
Is the service effective?
People all had an individual care plan which set out their care needs. People told us they had been fully involved in the assessment of their health and care needs and had contributed to developing their care plan.
The service had systems in place to monitor the care provided and to ensure people were happy with it.
Is the service caring?
People we spoke with said they felt staff treated them with respect and dignity. Care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People told us "the staff bend over backwards to help me" and are "absolutely wonderful." People told us they always felt safe and secure.
Staff were aware of people's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs. Our observations of the care provided, discussions with people and records we looked at demonstrated individual wishes for care and support were taken into account and respected.
Is the service responsive?
Information about the service was provided both verbally and in writing and focused on people having choices and on helping them maintain their independence. People told us they had been given opportunities to ask questions and had any concerns listened to and acted on. People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. They told us the service took complaints seriously and looked into them quickly.
People told us they were involved in reviewing their plans of care when their needs changed.
Is the service well-led?
The service had quality assurance systems, and records showed that identified problems and opportunities to change things for the better were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving.
Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They had a good understanding of the ethos of the service and the quality assurance processes that were in place. This helped to ensure people received a good quality service at all times.
People who used the service told us they were happy with the care and support they received. They told us the provider asked for their consent before giving any treatment or care.
There was an effective system in place available for people to raise concerns or complaints.
People lived in an environment that was well maintained and safe.
Effective recruitment and selection processes were in place with approriate pre-employment checks being carried out.