Linwood House

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

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 client’s care, treatment, and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. Staff assessed the physical and mental health of all clients. They developed individual care plans which were reviewed regularly through multidisciplinary discussion and updated as needed. We found the care and treatment provided by the service was effective. It was evidence based, measurable, and effectively monitored client’s outcomes. Processes and training were in place to support staff to perform their roles and responsibilities effectively. Clients were encouraged and supported to be involved in their care assessments and treatment planning, which promoted a person-centred approach. Staff demonstrated good knowledge of the importance of capacity to consent. Processes and assessments were in place to safeguard clients and their best interests.

The team included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of clients using the service. Staff from different disciplines worked together as a team to benefit clients.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

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

We scored the service as 3. The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

We found that staff completed a comprehensive assessment of the client on a pre-admission phone call, as well as requesting access to client records and GP summaries. Staff assessed clients’ physical health needs in a timely manner and are trained in the recognition of normal parameters. This included taking clients’ blood pressure, pulse, temperature and oxygen levels. Staff monitored withdrawal symptoms using recognised scales to ensure medicines for withdrawal were appropriately prescribed and dispensed. Staff developed care plans that met the needs identified during assessment. Care plans were personalised, holistic and recovery oriented. Staff updated care plans when necessary.

We scored the service as 3. The service 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.

Staff provided a range of care and treatment interventions suitable for treating alcohol and drug dependence. The interventions were those recommended by, and were delivered in line with, guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. This included group and individual therapy sessions and support with the effects of withdrawal from substances and the effects this can have on both mental and physical health. Staff ensured that clients had good access to physical healthcare, including access to specialists when needed. Staff assessed and met clients’ needs for food and drink and for specialist nutrition and hydration. Nutrition was seen as an important part of recovery and staff supported patients to maintain a balanced diet. The service provided all meals and client feedback about the food was very positive.

Staff participated in clinical audit, benchmarking and quality improvement initiatives. There was a wide range of audits that were carried out by the clinical team, including medicines, care records, and risk assessments audits. Staff used rating scales to track client’s symptoms and monitor progress.

The team included or had access to a range of specialists required to meet the needs of clients in the service. These included access to doctors either remotely or via a local GP practice, therapists, social workers and peer support workers. Staff were experienced and qualified and had the right skills and knowledge to meet the needs of the client group.

In May 2025 managers completed a 1-month staff consultation with staff. This resulted in an improvement in working patterns. During the second half of 2025, the provider commenced a review into the mission, vision and values. This involved a staff working party to encourage the engagement and participation of staff and resulted in the implementation of a new set of values which will be launched in January 2026 with a staff survey to follow.

Managers ensured that staff had access to regular team meetings. Minutes of these were shared with staff and from reviewing the minutes, we could see where actions were completed, and feedback was provided to staff at the next meeting. The percentage of staff that had had an appraisal in the last 12 months was 100%. The percentage of staff that received regular supervision was 97%. Managers identified the learning needs of staff and provided them with opportunities to develop their skills and knowledge. We saw examples whereby staff had requested training courses appropriate for the service they worked in, and these had been agreed to by the management team. Managers ensured that staff received the necessary specialist training for their roles.

Managers dealt with poor staff performance promptly and effectively.

We scored the service as 3. The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff held regular and effective multidisciplinary meetings. Staff shared information about clients at effective handover meetings within the team. The teams had effective working relationships, including good handovers, with other relevant teams within the organisation for example through care group meetings and community team meetings. The teams had effective working relationships with teams outside the organisation including the local authority safeguarding team, social services, local substance misuse community hubs and GP practices.

We scored the service as 3. The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximize their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff supported clients to live healthier lives. They gave clients advice and education around the importance of healthy eating and its role in recovery. Nutrition was a key part of the detoxification process and the service ensured that a varied, nutritious food menu was available to all clients.

Staff identified clients’ physical health needs and recorded these in care plans. Staff conducted checks of each client’s pulse, temperature, weight, height and blood pressure. Staff made sure clients had access to physical health care, including specialist services where required. Clients had access to a range of activities and groups to promote a healthy lifestyle including yoga, gong therapy sessions and access to gym facilities. Walking groups were advertised however, feedback from clients showed that these did not take place as advertised.

Clients were supported to live healthier lives post discharge with an end of treatment pack and access to local support networks.

We scored the service as 3. The service 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.

Staff used recognised rating scales to assess and record severity and outcomes and used recognised withdrawal scales to monitor detox and ensure medicines were reviewed and adjusted accordingly. This included the use of the Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol, Revised (CIW-AR) and the Severity of Alcohol Dependency Questionnaire (SADQ).

We scored the service as 3. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centered care and treatment.

Staff took all practical steps to enable clients to make their own decisions. For clients who might have impaired mental capacity, staff assessed and recorded capacity to consent appropriately and would carry this out on a decision specific basis with regards to significant decisions. On admission, clients were often still under the influence of alcohol or other substances, and staff were required to monitor them closely as detox commenced to understand if clients were still able to consent to treatment and used a specific intoxication and capacity assessment.

Staff were subject to mandatory mental capacity act training. They demonstrated a good understanding of the key principles and at the time of our assessment the training compliance was 100%.