Littledale Hall Therapeutic Community

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.

Staff supported clients with activities outside the service, such as work, education and family relationships. The service met the needs of all clients – including those with a protected characteristic. Staff helped clients with communication, and cultural and spiritual support. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the result.

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 evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff considered individual clients needs and preferences. Staff would meet these where appropriate and in consideration of the remit of the service. Staff could give examples of how individual client needs had been met, such as tailoring communication to meet certain needs.

Staff supported, informed and involved people using the service and their families or carers. Staff explained how clients were included in their care and treatment choices with families or carers being involved where appropriate.

Clients felt involved in their care and treatment. Clients stated that they had a voice within the service and the sense of community created amongst staff and peers enabled them to be open and honest.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service had links within the local community to enable clients to engage in various opportunities, such as accessing local recovery groups or volunteering. Managers recognised that establishing links and having experiences outside of the service was important for client’s post-recovery and ensuring they had support once they had left the service.

Staff supported clients to maintain contact with their families and carers. Staff would discuss this with clients on an individual basis and would provide support or encouragement to maintain contact as appropriate.

Staff supported clients to access their chosen place of worship within the community. The provider had links with local religious services and places of worship that clients could access.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed, including safeguarding and commissioners. The service had submitted notifications to CQC where necessary.

Staff ensured that clients could obtain information on the service and the care provided. The service had an information brochure and a client handbook to provide information to clients. The information provided was in a form accessible to the client group.

Staff ensured carers, families and commissioners were regularly updated about the client’s progress.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service had received one complaint in the 12 months prior to the inspection. Managers described how they managed this complaint and how feedback had been given to the complainant.

At the time of the onsite inspection, the service did not have any information on display informing clients about the complaints procedure, how to make a complaint or about contacting CQC. Managers explained that this information was normally on display in the entrance, but the poster had been moved. Managers confirmed that they would ensure this was addressed.

Clients knew how to complain or raise concerns.

Staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately. Managers noted that complaints tended to be lower-level issues that would often be resolved informally by staff facilitating a conversation with the client.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff ensured the needs of clients with mobility issues were met. The service had a bedroom which had been adapted to facilitate any clients with mobility issues. Managers recognised that the building itself would not be suitable for all potential admissions, such as those in wheelchairs, due to the building layout. Managers advised that assessments could still be offered to those clients to fully assess the client’s suitability.

Staff explained how they had supported clients whose first language was not English or who had difficulty in reading and writing.

Staff planned for clients’ discharge and had plans in place if clients unexpectedly left treatment.

The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. Clients confirmed that they were empowered to have a voice and share their thoughts and feelings.

Clients did not raise any concerns about facing discrimination and described that staff were “firm but fair” when making decisions and providing support to clients.

Managers recognised that clients could be marginalised or stigmatised because of their addiction and were keen to address this to ensure that all clients were supported whilst in the service.

Staff received training in equality and diversity as part of the mandatory training programme.

The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Staff supported clients to make decisions about their care and treatment and their future.

Staff created personalised care plans to account for the client’s needs, wishes and feelings.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs.

The service had a dedicated aftercare worker. Aftercare support was available for all clients who had completed their treatment. The aftercare service was voluntary and could be accessed for a year following discharge. For any clients who did not live locally, the aftercare service could be provided remotely via telephone or video call services.