The Care Quality Commission
  • Residential substance misuse service

Linwood House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Wensley Road, Barnsley, South Yorkshire, S71 1TJ (01226) 298910

Provided and run by:
Treatment Direct Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

23 & 24 August 2023

During a routine inspection

Our rating of this service improved. We rated it as good because:

  • The premises were safe, and staff carried out regular safety checks. Staff followed good practice with respect to reporting safeguarding concerns.
  • Staff provided all clients with a comprehensive assessment and offered a range of treatments including psychosocial interventions. Feedback from clients about the group therapy was highly positive and care plans were holistic and up to date.
  • Staff managed clients’ medicines well and had appropriate physical health care plans in place.
  • Managers ensured staff were up to date with their training, and received appropriate supervision and appraisal. Staff worked well together as a multidisciplinary team. They co-operated with relevant services outside the organisation.
  • Staff treated clients with compassion and kindness, and understood the individual needs of clients. They involved clients in decisions and care planning.
  • The service was easy to access. Staff planned and managed discharge well and had alternative pathways for people whose needs it could not meet.

However

  • The provider's governance processes could not demonstrate that the service was delivered in line with national guidance. Clients were subject to a large number of blanket restrictions, but the provider did not provide a rationale for why they were all necessary. The provider's improvement plans did not always reflect the improvements required.
  • There were several occasions where the service did not have the minimum numbers of staff on shift and not all agency staff had been given a proper induction before starting their shift.
  • The food on offer was not always of good quality and the service was not as clean as it should have been. Clients smoked in areas where they were not supposed to and this was off-putting for some clients.

26 27 April 2022

During a routine inspection

Our rating of this location went down. We rated it as requires improvement because:

  • Staff did not always monitor the physical healthcare needs of clients well. Physical health observations were not always carried out as prescribed by the doctor.
  • The service did not always manage risk well. Client risk assessments were not thorough and risk management plans did not ensure that risks were mitigated and managed. Environmental health and safety checks were not always carried out when they were due.
  • The service did not always ensure that where information could not be obtained about a client prior to starting treatment (such as access to a GP summary record) that risk assessments were undertaken and recorded to ensure the risks to starting treatment without this information had been assessed and mitigated.
  • The service did not always provide effective care. Care plans were not always updated and they were not holistic and detailed.
  • The service was not always well led. Our findings demonstrated that governance processes did not always operate effectively. Leaders did not ensure that all risks associated with the running of the service were mitigated and managed. Audits in place were not effective in making improvements.

However:

  • The service provided a range of therapeutic treatments suitable to the needs of the clients.
  • Managers ensured that staff received training, supervision and appraisal.
  • Staff treated clients with compassion and kindness and understood the individual needs of clients. They actively involved clients in decisions and care planning and clients gave positive feedback about the service.
  • The service was easy to access. Staff planned and managed discharge and had alternative pathways in place for people whose needs it could not meet.

05 October 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Linwood Park provides residential alcohol and drug detoxification and/or rehabilitation to adults over 18 years of age.

We did not plan to re-rate the service at this inspection as it was a focused inspection of key lines of enquiry related to the safe and well led key questions only. However, due to the inspection findings we have re-rated the safe key question as requires improvement because we have applied a ratings limiter due to breaches of regulation (legal requirements) found during the inspection.

Our rating of this location stayed the same. We rated it as good because:

  • Staff had completed and kept up-to-date with their mandatory training.
  • We observed, and clients told us, that staff treated them well.
  • Leaders were skilled and knowledgeable about the service, and were focused on making improvements.

However:

  • The premises where clients were seen was not safe and well maintained. There were significant refurbishment works taking place with some areas only blocked off by moveable plastic barriers, equipment was left unattended, and there were loose cables on the floor. Control measures put in place to manage risks from refurbishment works were not effective as they did not identify or lead to removal of all risks. Some clients told us they found it hard to concentrate on their recovery due to the refurbishment works and felt that managers had not responded to concerns raised.
  • Managers did not ensure important fire safety checks were consistently completed and we observed fire doors not closing during a fire drill. Therefore, they could not guarantee that clients and staff would be kept safe in the event of a fire.
  • Numbers of staff on duty did not consistently match the manager’s staffing plan. Therefore, they could not guarantee that clients would be kept safe, particularly during detoxification. Some clients felt that staff did not have enough time to spend with them.
  • Managers did not ensure all incidents were correctly reviewed.
  • Some governance systems and processes were not operating effectively to maintain clear oversight of the service and to ensure improvements were made.