Archived: Grace House

Updated 8 July 2016

Grace House is a residential rehabilitation service for up to 10 women. The provider is ARP Charitable Services which is a part of a wider organisation called Phoenix Futures. At the time of our inspection there were 5 women using the service. Women were funded either through health or social care services. However, two women had received bursaries on admission. The service opened in September 2015, having previously been a mixed detox unit.

The registered manager at the time of the inspection was no longer working in the service and another manager was in place with day to day responsibility for running the service. They had made an application to be the registered manager with CQC but this had not been completed.

The current service is registered to provide accommodation for persons who require treatment for substance misuse.

The previous service which was in the same location called Herbert Street had three inspections in May 2011, February 2013 and December 2013. While the registration remained the same, the service, staff team and management were different at Grace House and the service had been compliant with the relevant regulations at it’s most recent inspection.

Updated 8 July 2016

We do not currently rate independent standalone substance misuse services.

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

• Staff received induction training when they started at the service. However, there were gaps in specialist training around mental health, substance misuse and eating disorders. While some of this training was planned to take place in the future, there were people who used the service who had complex needs. The training provided did not support staff to work with people with complex needs.
• There had been a high turnover rate of staff, particularly at night. This meant that there had been a strong reliance on agency and bank staff so there had not been consistent staffing. This had improved with the recruitment of new staff to cover the service since January 2016.
• Some risk assessments were comprehensive. However, some did not include clear crisis management and relapse prevention plans. The provider has told us that since the inspection, the service has introduced separate relapse prevention planning and separate crisis planning documents that will be utilised with people who used the service.
• Staff were not clear about their responsibilities relating to the Mental Capacity Act. This was reflected by the policy which did not reflect the use of the Mental Capacity Act in a rehabilitation setting.

However, we also found the following areas of good practice:

• The service had governance systems in place to ensure that information was fed up and across the organisation as a whole. Staff were positive about local leadership and management.
• The service had been newly refurbished. There were available sitting rooms and areas for therapy groups as well as an outdoor garden area which people could access. The service had a main house and a bungalow. The bungalow was used for people who were further on the road towards recovery.
• The service had implemented a buddying system which assisted people who arrived at the service to receive informal support from other people who were further along the recovery programme. This peer support was helpful to people who came to the service