Linson Court

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good.This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed before they started using the service, and the information was used to inform care plans. However, we identified the provider was not always following their own Admissions Policy which stated full care plans would be in place 7 days after admission. For example, 2 people had been admitted in April 2025, and they had a short stay care plan in place which only covered priority areas of their care. The people were receiving palliative care and there were no end-of-life care plans in place.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The service supported people in line with legislation and used current evidence based good practice effectively. Recognised tools were used to assess people in relation to areas such as falls, hydration and nutrition. Whilst we did find shortfalls in how people’s skin integrity was monitored; we saw other areas of good practice. For example, where people were at risk of losing weight good systems were in place to monitor this, including making referrals to other agencies and offering fortified food and snacks. The cook had a good understanding of people’s nutritional needs. Most people and relatives spoke positively about the quality of the food and their meal experiences. They had regular opportunities to provide feedback about the choice and quality of meals. The provider told us there were plans in place to further enhance people’s options, particularly where they were assessed to need meals with a different texture.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people.

There was evidence of good team working within the service and with external partners. There were effective links with families and other health and social care professionals, and referrals to other agencies were made for support and guidance where needed. Staff felt supported, valued and included in the day to day running of the home and daily flash meetings were held where staff with different roles shared information. Comments included, “We are like one big family. There is a happy atmosphere.” Feedback from stakeholders working with the service was positive.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Systems were in place to ensure people had access to specialist support and professional advice was used to inform care plans. Records showed involvement from other professionals including district nurses, occupational therapists and speech and language teams. People had access to a dentist, podiatrist and hairdresser. There were good links with the GP who carried out weekly visits to the service. The provider employed a physiotherapist and an occupational therapist to provide dedicated programmes of support to some people. We observed a gentle group exercise classes which promoted people’s health and wellbeing. There was a range of fresh fruit routinely available for people to enjoy as a snack. The provider told us they were extending the availability of this for staff.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Processes were in place to evidence people’s care and support was monitored. For example, where required, people’s weights and their nutrition and hydration intake was checked and monitored. Staff understood the importance of monitoring people’s care and completed daily records when interventions were provided. The service had regular clinical governance meetings which ensured the registered manager and senior team had an overview of people’s needs.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Processes were in place to assess people’s mental capacity. Where people lacked capacity, best interest assessments were in place for restrictions such as bedrails or sensor mats.

Staff had training in the Mental Capacity Act and people were routinely offered choice and control over how they wanted to spend their day. This was sometimes hampered by staff availability. On occasions comments were made that people did not have capacity as a blanket statement, which did not support the principles capacity can be fluctuating and is decision specific. However, we did not observe any concerns about staff practice.

People and relatives told us their choices were promoted. Comments included, “I can do what I like when I like, and staff are easy going.”