TLC Rehab

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

Whilst clients had individual recovery plans in place, the service delivered did not always meet people’s individual needs.

Although the care records demonstrated that most clients’ recovery plans were personalised and holistic, we heard some mixed feedback from clients. Some clients reported having limited access to the prescriber, meaning they could not always discuss their treatment plan and request changes to it.

Two clients said there were some maintenance issues that would make their stay more comfortable, if addressed. For example, some rugs looked worn and should be cleaned or replaced. One client did not have a desk available in their bedroom on admission, and another did not have a bedside lamp. The service did not provide terrestrial TV, and clients were required to use their own subscription services if they wanted to use the TV in their bedroom.

Two recently discharged clients told us their individual needs were met well at the service. However, 2 current clients told us they were disappointed with the service delivered and expected to receive more individualised care. Two clients said some of the group sessions felt more tailored to people getting support for alcohol detoxification, rather than other substances.

Clients were supported to maintain contact with family and friends and participate in community-based activities.

Staff supported clients to maintain contact with their families and carers in line with their wishes. One client told us about their friend supporting them through assessment and how staff included the friend in this process. Clients could keep their phones and laptops during admission.

Staff supported clients to access education or work opportunities when relevant. For example, a client told us that a healthcare assistant had supported them to update their CV to make steps to getting back into work and described this as extremely helpful.

Staff ensured that clients could access appropriate spiritual support. Spiritual needs were explored on admission. Staff told us that support workers could accompany clients to their chosen place of worship.

A client who was recently discharged told us they were given a plan and information on community support available.

The service had not established links with organisations or specialist providers in the local area that might support development of this even more.

The service provided a welcome pack, but did not always supply appropriate, accurate, and up-to-date information on its website or within the premises.

Staff provided clients with a comprehensive welcome pack which included information on treatments, local services that the public could access, their rights, advocacy organisations, complaints, safety arrangements, and restrictions within the service.

However, some clients told us the care they received was not in line with their expectations from what they read about the service prior to their admission. Two clients were concerned that the service’s most recent CQC rating was not clearly displayed and said they would not have come to the service had they known it. We were told that the ratings poster on the premises was previously not visible as it was obscured by other information on the notice board. At the time of our inspection, the provider had not reflected the CQC rating on its website. We raised this with the managers during our visit, and they took prompt action to make the rating clearly visible. Registered providers must ensure their ratings are displayed conspicuously and legibly at each location and on their website.

Staff and managers had access to information to support them in their role. For example, meeting minutes were now available to staff to read. However, while community meeting minutes were available to staff, they were not shared with clients. We discussed this with managers, who said they would make them available on the information board.

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 clear information available about how to raise a concern or make a formal complaint, including to external bodies. Clients we spoke with confirmed they knew how to complain if needed. The service carried out a monthly review of concerns and complaints to ensure compliance with the complaints handling policy. The service had received 4 complaints and 2 informal concerns in the 6 months before our inspection.

Staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately and received feedback on the outcomes of investigations as needed. We saw learning identified from complaints. For example, specific additional training was given to staff following a complaint. Following recent complaints about the poor quality of food prepared by agency staff, the service was recruiting a part-time chef to cover the weekends.

The service held weekly community meetings where clients were asked for feedback about care, both to share positive experiences and raise any concerns or maintenance issues. In the community meeting we attended, clients were confident to raise issues that concerned them.

The service also monitored compliments received and shared these with staff. From the audits we saw that 7 compliments were received between November 2025 and March 2026.

The service collected feedback from clients after treatment was completed. Information from an audit in November 2025 showed that 4 of 8 clients rated the service as outstanding in all areas, and others rated it as outstanding or good.

The service made sure that people with protected characteristics such as a physical disability, could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service was equipped with a lift, and accommodation on the ground floor was available for people who had mobility needs. The lift was in working order at the time of our inspection. The service made it clear during assessment if they could not accommodate someone’s physical disability needs in their environment.

The service had a form to complete personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) for any clients requiring assistance during evacuations. No PEEPs were in place at the time of our inspection. Following our feedback, managers provided assurance that these would be put in place going forward.

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.

The service had now ensured that staff received mandatory training in equality, diversity and human rights, and 94% of staff had completed it. Additionally, 80% of staff had completed the Oliver McGowan mandatory training on learning disabilities and autism. Staff we spoke with thought the service was inclusive of diverse groups of people, including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

Clients we spoke with did not raise any concerns about discrimination.

There was no information on display to make groups with protected characteristics feel welcome and included, which would promote a positive approach to equality and inclusion.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

We saw evidence that the service had now improved its discharge planning process, including planning for an unexpected treatment exit. Two former clients we spoke with were positive about their discharge plan and the aftercare support they received. A client who was discharged during our inspection visit was prescribed appropriate relapse prevention medications. Staff told us they provided clients with harm minimisation advice and Naloxone (a life-saving medication used to rapidly reverse an opioid overdose) if they were at risk of experiencing an overdose on discharge.

The standard aftercare offer consisted of 3 follow-up calls with a therapist and weekly online meetings. Leaders told us about plans to improve this provision further.