Archived: Grace House Residential Service

Updated 18 October 2019

Grace House is a residential rehabilitation service for up to 10 women. The provider is Phoenix Futures. At the time of our inspection there were six women using the service. Women were funded either through health or social care services. The service opened in September 2015, having previously been a mixed detox unit.

Treatment at Grace House is abstinence-based. The service provides psychosocial support and does not provide detoxification. Clients requiring detoxification attend a different service before their admission to Grace House.

At the time of the inspection there was no registered manager in place and the service programme manager was responsible for the day to day running of the service. The organisation’s head of housing and quality manager were based onsite to support the daily operations of the service. At the time of the inspection the organisation was in the process of recruiting for the registered manager post.

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

CQC has inspected the service under the Health and Social Care Act (2010) four times, in May 2011, February 2013, December 2013 and April 2016.

At the previous inspection in April 2016 we found some risk assessments did not include clear crisis management and relapse prevention plans. During this inspection we found client lead crisis and management and relapse prevention plans included within risk assessments.

At the previous inspection in April 2016 we found staff had not completed specialist training specific to the complex needs of the clients in the service. During this inspection we found that staff within the service had completed specialist training to meet the needs of clients in the service and job roles.  

Updated 18 October 2019

We rated Grace House as outstanding because:

• People were truly respected and valued as individuals and were empowered as partners in their care by an exceptional and distinctive service. Feedback from people who use the service was continually positive about the way staff treat people. People thought that staff went the ‘extra mile’ and their care and support exceeded their expectations. Staff were fully committed to working in partnership with people and making this a reality for each person.
• There was a strong, visible person-centred culture. Staff were highly motivated and inspired to offer care that was kind and promoted people’s dignity. Relationships between people who use the service and staff were strong, caring, respectful and supportive. These relationships were highly valued by staff and promoted by leaders. Staff always empowered people who use the service to have a voice and to realise their potential. People’s individual preferences and needs were always reflected in how care was delivered.
• There was a truly holistic approach to assessing, planning and delivering care and treatment to all people who used the service. Staff and clients worked in partnership to develop holistic, recovery-oriented care plans informed by a comprehensive assessment. Staff were consistent in supporting people to live healthier lives. Staff recognised that clients needed to have access to, and links with, advocacy and support networks in the community and they supported people to do this.
• The continuing development of the staff’s skills, competence and knowledge was recognised as being integral to ensuring high-quality care. Staff were proactively supported and encouraged to acquire new skills, use their transferable skills, and share best practice.
• In addition to providing a range of treatments in line with national guidance about best practice, the service went above and beyond, offering a range of additional tailored interventions that met client needs such as ‘trauma informed care’ and ‘freedom programme’ approaches.
• All staff were actively engaged in activities to monitor and improve quality and outcomes. Staff engaged in clinical audit to evaluate the quality of care they provided. Outcomes for people who use services were positive and consistent. There was a holistic approach to planning people’s discharge, transfer or transition to other services, which was done at the earliest possible stage.
• The team had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of clients under their care. Managers ensured that staff received training, supervision and appraisal. Staff worked well together as a multidisciplinary team and with relevant services outside the organisation.
• The service provided safe care. The premises were safe and clean. The service had enough staff. Staff assessed and managed risk well and followed good practice with respect to safeguarding.
• The service was easy to access. Staff planned and managed discharge well and had alternative pathways for people whose needs it could not meet.
• The service was well led, and the governance processes ensured that its procedures ran smoothly.
• Leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles, had a good understanding of the services they managed.
• Staff felt respected, supported and valued.