The Haynes Clinic Limited Also known as Chicksands

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

We rated Responsive as Requires improvement because the service did not always meet people’s needs. Staff did not always have the information they needed to meet the individual needs and preferences of people. People’s information was not routinely shared with GPs and other professionals on discharge. Complaints were not always fully investigated.

However, the provider gave people opportunity to feedback on the service. Staff supported people to keep in contact with family during their treatment. People could access the service when they needed to.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s care plans did not fully reflect their physical or mental health needs.

Care plans did not reflect individual, person centred care, they were generic. Care records did not reflect individualised care and treatment needs for example for people experiencing mental health conditions (eating disorder, psychosis) or physical health (hearing impairment).

We reviewed 9 care records. Two people had reference to disordered eating habits and low weight. Both people had a food contract in place to state they would eat 3 healthy meals per day and remain seated at the table for 40 minutes after eating. There was no care plan in place for their food contract, there was no reference in their daily notes that these requirements were being monitored and no ongoing weight measurements or records of food and fluid intake.

We saw in 1 record that the initial referral included a diagnosis of psychosis and the person presented with psychotic symptoms on admission. There was no care plan for continued engagement with mental health services, and no communication was recorded between the service and the person’s G.P. or mental health team.

One person had a serious hearing impairment and used lip reading to communicate. They had not been able to fully take part in therapeutic groups. There was no care plan in place to describe how the person could be supported and included with all aspects of treatment.

People were not involved in care planning and their views were not reflected in the records we saw. There was no evidence care plans were shared with people.

Staff supported people to maintain contact with their families while in treatment. Family members were able to visit their loved ones and people we spoke with confirmed this.

Managers told us that therapists provided family therapy with the people and family if required. Staff made sure that people had access to groups and activities to support their recovery.

The service ran after-care support for up to 12 months following the end of their treatment. Staff told us that people who had been sober for more than 10 years stay connected to the clinic and were keen to share their experiences with new people.

Some people we spoke with told us they received an email containing information about the service prior to admission whilst others told us they received a phone call.

Staff told us they provided information about after care following treatment and signpost people to recovery networks.

Staff did not provide information to people on discharge about alcohol or drug misuse support services within their local area.

The service had a complaints process in place and their policy was made available on their website. We asked the provider for a copy of their complaints log for the past 6 months and saw that since January 2025 they had received 1 complaint. We saw evidence that this had been fully investigated, and the family had been involved. However, during the on-site inspection, we reviewed a further 4 complaints that had been received between April 2024 and January 2025. The theme of these complaints was attitude of staff.

Whilst the most recent complaint had been investigated and the family involved, for the previous 4 complaints we did not see evidence that the service admitted when things went wrong or apologised, when appropriate. Therefore, the service’s complaints process required ongoing monitoring and improvement.

Staff made sure that people knew how to complain or give compliments and people we spoke with confirmed this. The provider held weekly community meetings where people had the opportunity to feedback on the service or raise concerns. Staff encouraged people to give feedback on discharge. People knew how to raise concerns and complaints, if they needed to.

The provider routinely collected feedback from people using the service. We saw an example of a feedback for report for 2024. The report included positive feedback and areas for improvement. The provider had identified 5 actions including providing more 1-2-1s ; having more social occasions / fun sessions; more workshops; not having too long a lunch hour and making people aware of the option of going for a walk.

The service set out the following statement within their exclusion criteria ; “The Haynes Clinic does not discriminate against anyone who needs treatment on the grounds of race, religion, gender, sexuality or disability. Neither do we discriminate on the basis of age though we are only registered to treat adults aged 18 and over. There is no upper age limit”. However, the inclusion and exclusion guidance document was brief and did not include a clear process for staff to follow.

The service was unable to accept referrals from wheelchair users due to the accessibility and layout of the buildings.

Not all people were able to engage in all parts of the service as their individual needs were not met. This restricted their ability to be included in all parts of treatment.

There was no waiting list at the time of the inspection. People could access the service when they needed to.

Staff provided people with access to aftercare once they had completed treatment.

Overall, 100% of staff had completed mandatory training in equality and diversity.

Whilst people with ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), ASD (autism spectrum disorder) and neurodivergence could access the service there was no mandatory training for staff on learning disabilities and autism. The Provider offered food addiction services. However, there was no mandatory training for eating disorders and staff told us they would like more training and information to better understand this. The admissions criteria for this stated they could not accept people with a low body mass index (BMI) but did not clearly set out a value.

The service discharge policy stated the service would provide signposting to local recovery networks, counselling, and GP support. However, we did not always see evidence that other professionals were contacted and that information was shared on discharge with the person’s GP. Information sharing with other services ensures that support is available for people on discharge from treatment and reduces risk.

However, staff told us the discharge process was to discuss leaving arrangements. This included speaking to their next of kin and giving a leaving pack with details of aftercare support.

People we spoke with were not all aware of their unexpected exit plans or discharge plans.

Staff told us that people could access aftercare support for up to 12 months.