The Care Quality Commission
  • Residential substance misuse service

Archived: The Haynes Clinic Limited - Cople Also known as Cople

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

70 Willington Road, Cople, Bedfordshire, MK44 3TN (01462) 851414

Provided and run by:
The Haynes Clinic Limited

All Inspections

21 January 2020

During a routine inspection

We rated The Haynes Clinic as good because:

• The service had enough staff. Staff assessed and managed risk well and followed good practice with respect to safeguarding.

• Staff developed holistic, recovery-oriented care plans informed by a comprehensive assessment. They provided a range of treatments suitable to the needs of the clients and in line with national guidance about best practice.

• The team had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of clients under their care. Managers ensured that staff received training, supervision and appraisal. Staff worked well together as a multidisciplinary team.

• Staff treated clients with compassion and kindness and understood the individual needs of clients. They actively involved clients in decisions and care planning.

• The service was well led, and the governance processes ensured that its procedures ran smoothly.

However:

• Blood pressure and temperature monitoring for one client on a detox regime was not present within their file. This was not in line with The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance which states close monitoring and review is needed.

• The provider’s accommodation was mixed sex. Bathrooms were not designated for males or females and sleeping areas were not separated for males and females.

• The client’s kitchen area at the clinic where clients could make hot drinks was unclean.

11 November 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At our last inspection of The Haynes Clinic Limited - Cople, in August 2013, we identified non compliance in relation to staff supervision and appraisals. We imposed a compliance action and told the provider they must make improvements in this regard. The provider submitted an action plan and told us what actions they had taken, and confirmed they would be compliant by the end of September 2013.

When we carried out this inspection on 11 November 2013, we found the provider had introduced further systems to support staff, and ensured staff received an annual appraisal and appropriate professional development.

12 August 2013

During a routine inspection

During our inspection of The Haynes Clinic Limited - Cople on 12 August 2013, we visited the clinic where people received treatment between the hours of 9am and 5pm. We also visited the house where people lived whilst receiving treatment.

We reviewed the treatment records for people who received treatment, and saw evidence that people consented to their treatment. We also saw that people's treatment needs were assessed and treatment plans were in place to deliver care to meet their needs.

We reviewed the systems in place for ensuring people received adequate nutrition, and we also looked at the steps the provider had taken to ensure safe, suitable premises for people who received care.

In our review of the staff training and support systems, we found that staff did not receive supervisions or appraisals to support their development and in their role.

During a check to make sure that the improvements required had been made

During our inspection of The Haynes Clinic on 20 February 2013 we spoke with one person who was staying at The Haynes Clinic Cople whilst receiving treatment at The Haynes Clinic. We also viewed two people's records. These records travel with the people between the two locations.

We found the provider had made improvements to this service since our inspection in October 2012. We received positive feedback from the person we spoke with who was staying at The Haynes Clinic Cople.

The person said that they were listened too and that their rights were respected by the staff. They told us, 'Yes my rights are respected. There are things I don't like such as having my parcels searched and being breathalysed but I understand why these things happen.'

People told us that they were able to make choices within the structure of the programme. For instance, people said there was choice about how they spent their spare time and the food that was prepared for meals.

We found that people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their care and treatment plans. Staff were knowledgeable about people's needs. The person told us that they felt safe at the service and had good relationships with the staff and the other people receiving a service. They told us, 'The staff are very good and seem to know what they're talking about. I do find some more approachable than others but I suppose that's life. I don't find the rules to strict.'

4, 6 December 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had improved arrangements in place to manage medicines.

The provider had improved their procedures relating to the recruitment and selection of staff. They had taken action to ensure that staff were suitable to work with people using this service.

16 October 2012

During a routine inspection

People we spoke with told us that, overall, they were happy with the service provided. One person said, 'It's brilliant'. Another person said, 'I would like to thank all the staff for helping me with my recovery'.

However, people also commented that their dignity, diversity and physical needs were not always met or respected. They did not always have sufficient choices and did not receive sufficient information about the service.

Each person had a care plan in place. However, these were not personalised and did not give staff sufficient guidance on the specific care each person needed. For some people, risks had been identified but there was no guidance in place for staff on how to manage the risks.

People told us they received the medicines they had been prescribed. We found that medicines were not being managed correctly. Fire safety checks were not satisfactory so put people at risk. The provider's recruitment process was not robust enough to ensure staff employed were suitable to work with people using the service.

People told us they did not know who to speak with if they wanted to comment or complain. They said there was no complaint information displayed in the service.