Linwood House

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

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 met client’s needs. We rated this key question good. This meant client’s needs were met through effective planning and delivery. The service collaborated well with external partners, and clients when planning and delivering care, treatment, and future support. Staff completed the appropriate assessments and demonstrated a person-centred approach which ensured they responded quickly and effectively to the needs of the clients. Accurate information was readily available, and given to clients and their families when needed, or requested. Training and processes enabled the service to identify possible bias, discrimination and barriers to treatment, and how to act on this to support clients appropriately. Clients' families, and people who knew them well were encouraged and supported to be involved in all aspects of their care and treatment.

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.

Care plans were personalised to the needs of the individual and were reviewed regularly. Staff reviewed and updated risk assessments when levels of risk changed and actions were put in place to mitigate risk and respond to the change. For example, if a clients physical health declined during detox. Discharge plans were individualised and related to personal circumstances. For example, care plans included action to take if a client chose to self-discharge during treatment and ‘end of treatment packs’ are issued giving information and advice regarding any support groups and helplines. The service held weekly community meetings, where clients had the opportunity to raise any issues. The community meetings were very well attended by clients and various staff roles, such as chefs, managers, cleaners and maintenance staff. We saw evidence of issues being raised at community meetings were acted on in a timely fashion.

All clients we spoke to during our assessment said they felt safe and supported at Linwood House.

We scored the service as 3. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff supported clients to maintain contact with their families while in treatment. They did not allow visits during the detoxification period and clients agreed to this prior to admission. However, clients could facetime with family if they were struggling and if the client had young children face-to-face visits were facilitated on rare occasions if this may have otherwise negatively impacted the client’s treatment journey. As detoxification only lasted around one week, clients told us that the visiting arrangements were ok as it was only for a short period of time. Once a clients detoxification phase of treatment was complete, visits with family could be arranged. Clients also told us that their families were kept informed about their treatment with their consent and that staff completed welfare checks if there were children at home.

Linwood House had good relationships with local recovery hubs and when appropriate clients were encouraged to attend and were provided with timetables.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff made referrals to external agencies when required and notified external bodies as needed. This included contacting the police and making safeguarding referrals where appropriate. Staff had completed training in data protection and compliance rates at the time of our assessment was above 75%. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a legal framework that sets guidelines for the collection and processing of personal information.

Information was available on treatment, local service, client rights and how to complain. There was information boards located around Linwood House and clients were provided with information about how to complain in their admissions pack. However, we could not find evidence of leaflets in other spoken languages or easy read formats.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

There were 35 complaints in the last 12 months. 20 were partially upheld and 15 were not upheld. There were no clear themes identified. The complaints related to issues including on-site admission and discharge process, other client’s behaviour and staff communication and treatment. All client complaints were responded to within the correct timeframe and an apology was offered where necessary. One complaint resulted in managers introducing random staff “walk throughs” of the site to increase staff visibility.

When clients complained or raised concerns, they received written feedback and had a face-to-face meeting or telephone call with staff. Staff protected clients who raised concerns or complaints from discrimination and harassment. Staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately.

Staff received feedback on the outcome of investigation of complaints and acted on the findings.

We scored the service as 3. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff at Linwood House ensured clients with mobility issues needs were met – for example, Linwood House was equipped with a lift and there were ramps into and throughout the building. There were also accessible bedrooms and bathroom facilities available.

Linwood House was within a reasonable travelling distance to the local acute hospital.

We did not identify any barriers to accessing treatment with admissions being triaged via pre-admission phone calls with a specific, service wide admissions team. If it was felt an individual was not appropriate for admission to Linwood House for example, due to a need for medical or nursing care, the possibility of admission to another facility could be explored. Staff planned and managed discharge well.

Clients had access to post-discharge care. Clients had discharges plans in place and staff gave them an end of treatment information pack with information on access to local recovery hubs, follow up recovery sessions and Alumni sessions.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the clients using the service felt empowered to give their views. Clients we spoke with felt that they would be able to give their feedback about the service without any issues. We saw evidence of client feedback being submitted and subsequently addressed, for example, ‘You said, we did’ boards and community meeting minutes.

Staff received mandatory training in equality, diversity and inclusion with compliance rates of 97% for existing staff. The service considered and addressed barriers to access for specific communities and those with protected characteristics. Managers were considerate about the needs of specific communities and client groups and noted how they would adapt the service to attempt to meet the needs of these clients for example, offering special diets for religious purposes and space to pray if this was important to the client.

We scored the service as 3. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their treatment.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of clients with complex needs. For example, in most care records a GP summary had been requested. We found services such as social care had been involved in treatment and in discharge planning. The service had an early discharge exit strategy, which would be implemented if somebody needed or wanted to be discharged from the service early. Clients we spoke with told us that everyone was aware of these and what would happen should this situation arise.