• Residential substance misuse service

Nelson House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Brimscombe Hill, Brimscombe, Stroud, Gloucestershire, GL5 2QP (01453) 885633

Provided and run by:
The Nelson Trust

All Inspections

Other CQC inspections of services

Community & mental health inspection reports for Nelson House can be found at The Nelson Trust. Each report covers findings for one service across multiple locations

31 January 2019

During a routine inspection

We rated Nelson Trust as good because:

  • Staff were proactive at identifying and managing risk. There were effective systems in place to ensure the management of clients’ risks. Risk assessments and recovery plans were personalised, thorough, and understood by all staff. All staff understood how to report incidents and near misses. Managers reviewed incidents in governance meetings and involved staff in discussing the learning from incidents and implementing change. Incidents were also reviewed by the risk and assurance team.
  • The premises were safe for the clients. The managers had completed ligature and environmental risk assessments on the premises in 2018. These were reviewed every six months.
  • Care plans and crisis plans were up to date or comprehensive to assist the teams to deliver safe care and treatment to clients. They were holistic, personalised and promoted recovery and met the individual needs of each client. They included physical health care checks from clients’ GPs.
  • Clients and their families were encouraged to work together. Families were offered weekend workshops to assist and understand their relative’s recovery. Family members spoken with were very positive about this.
  • The service ensured clients were integrated into the local social networks, employment and education opportunities. Many clients remained in the local area after completing their treatment and became part of the community.
  • The service ensured there was a wide choice of treatments and clients’ individual needs and preferences were central to the planning and delivery of tailored services. There was an education academy where clients completed educational courses in conjunction with the local college. There was also a maintenance team in the service where clients could learn new skills.
  • Senior managers in the service demonstrated clear, effective and inclusive leadership with a strong sense of direction and objectives. All staff spoken with were aware of the developments and direction of the service.
  • The board of trustees, the senior management team and the Chief Executive Officer were visible across all sites. They visited the houses and attended community meetings. Clients and staff were confident they could raise concerns with any of the senior management team and they would be acted upon.

However:

  • Staff members did not ensure clients had access to advocacy services.

29 November to 01 December 2016

During a routine inspection

We do not currently rate independent standalone substance misuse services.

We found the following areas of good practice:

  • The Nelson Trust provided a safe and caring place for people to recover from substance addiction. Staff worked collaboratively with clients to complete a holistic treatment plan. Staff helped arranged funding extensions when clients needed a longer stay.
  • Staff managed risk at the service though client assessment and ongoing discussion with clients. There was good support for clients to help them engage with the service when they were admitted and to help them prepare appropriately and maintain their abstinence when they moved on from the residential treatment. Clients often maintained contact and supported others in their recovery.
  • Staff maintained a safe and supportive environment and conflict was well managed. Clients said they felt supported and spoke positively of their care.
  • The Nelson Trust offered extensive aftercare, the potential for a staggered end to treatment and opportunities for clients to engage in the local community during and following their residential treatment.
  • All staff from the chief executive down were passionate about providing good care. We found positive leadership across the Nelson Trust.

However, we also found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

  • We noted that a store room in an outbuilding adjacent to the laundry area in Stafford House that should have been locked had been left open for at least several days. This room has furniture piled up high and an iron girder across the ceiling with a rope hanging from it; presenting a ligature risk and potential hazard.
  • The provider had not ensured that medicines were always managed safely at Nelson House.

18 December 2013

During a routine inspection

People told us 'I feel I get respect from the staff', and, 'I feel respected and that the staff care'. They said they were involved in developing their care plan which was tailored to their individual needs. People were positive about their experiences at Nelson House and told us that the program was working for them.

People's needs were assessed and care was planned in relation to this. Comments from people about their care included, 'This is a safe place. There is a lot of love and care here', 'It is good here, it feels positive', 'I get a lot out of the groups. The support is really good'. People were able to attend groups and therapeutic one to one sessions which addressed their specific needs. Where a need for specific domestic abuse work was identified the provider arranged training to meet this need.

Medicines were managed safely. We identified a safety issue with medicines and the provider took immediate action to rectify this.

There was a suitable mix of experienced and qualified staff who were able to access additional training and supervision as required.

The provider had an effective system in place to monitor the quality of the service.

25 February 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with three people engaged in treatment at Nelson House and two members of staff. We looked at three people's care records.

People felt respected and treated considerately. They understood the conditions of their treatment and any sanctions if the therapeutic contract was broken. They were able to make choices about their treatment.

People were active participants in planning their care and their goals were discussed and reviewed every three weeks. There was a range of activities and educational services which people could undertake.

The home was clean and tidy but we had some concerns about the lack of appropriate guidance to people on minimising the risk of infection or spread of infection.

People were supported by staff who were trained, supported and committed.

The provider had a system in place to monitor the quality of the service.