Linwood House

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained the same.

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved client’s and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity, and respect. Clients were seen as individuals and were treated with dignity and respect. Client care was person-centred and tailored to meet individual needs. They were encouraged and supported to be involved in their care and treatment planning. Resources and equipment were available to allow the service to respond promptly to the needs of the clients. Clients told us that staff were caring and compassionate and sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff were visible and available to clients, supporting them to maintain and build upon their independence, promoting choice and control. Staff engaged with clients in a kind, compassionate, and caring way and clients received good quality care and support, and staff sought their feedback to improve the quality of care they provided.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Caring.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional at treating people with kindness, empathy and compassion and in how they respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff always treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Clients gave overwhelmingly positive feedback about the service. They said they were optimistic about their treatment and felt included in their care. They told us they felt listened to by staff and that staff treated clients with dignity and respect, and that they felt safe. They also said that “staff are fantastic”, “therapists are amazing”, “staff do everything they can to support clients” and that staff went “above and beyond”. They felt listened to by staff and clients commented on the cleanliness of the building and the comfortable facilities. Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with clients showed that they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing clients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it.

Staff supported clients to understand and manage their care and treatment. Staff supported clients to access other services such as alcoholics and narcotics anonymous. Staff understood the individual needs of clients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards clients without fear of the consequences. Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about clients at Linwood House.

We scored the service as 3. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, goals, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff ensured that clients could obtain information on treatments, local services, clients’ rights, and how to complain. There was signage displayed throughout the service and clients were given information on how to complain on admission, a translation service was also available to clients. Clients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances. The service employed chefs who could adapt the menu to meet any requirements.

Staff ensured that clients had access to appropriate spiritual support.

We scored the service as 3. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Prior to admission clients were required to accept the rules of the unit and adhere to a behaviour contract, including not going outside of the hospital grounds during detoxification and no visitors. We saw evidence that clients signed to say they accepted these rules before arrival and that staff ensured these rules were enforced but with compassion and on occasions applied with appropriate flexibility. This approach promoted clients’ independence, choice, and control over their care, as they were actively involved in decision-making, and their preferences were respected. Staff supported clients to access activities on the unit. This included more formal group work around substance misuse and abstinence, as well as more relaxed activities such as art, gaming, board games and gym facilities.

We scored the service as 3. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimize any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risks, such as safeguarding issues and disorientation, and care planned these risks accordingly. Staff identified and responded to changing risks to or posed by clients such as a change in presentation and any signs of medical emergency.

Group rules were reiterated at therapy sessions and community meeting as well as behaviour contracts being utilised where necessary.

We scored the service as 3. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they felt valued, respected, safe and supported. Staff spoke positively about new managers that had started earlier in the year and described positive changes that had taken place including recent improvements in work patterns.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service. The staff team had access to a host of services to support them in their role including staff counselling service and access to the providers own occupational health services if required.

Staff told us that the provider really valued lived experience of recovery, and this was embedded in the service culture. Opportunities for volunteering and career development were available to previous clients. Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported. Staff were encouraged to develop and progress their career in various ways such as additional training outside of the providers own training matrix.