Seacroft Court

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

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed when they were admitted to the service and regularly reviewed to ensure care and support continued to meet their needs. Care records were personalised and showed how people liked to receive their care and support. People were involved in assessing and planning their care. Where people did not have the mental capacity to be fully involved in decision making records showed the involvement of those who knew them well, such as relatives. A relative told us, “They [staff] listen to people really well about what they want.”

Risks to people’s health and welfare had been assessed and management plans were in place to reduce risk. Staff knew people’s needs very well and said they were kept up to date with people’s changing needs.

The provider 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 worked with a range of external professionals to provide care and support which met people’s individual needs. Care records showed the use of nationally recognised assessment tools for needs such as eating and drinking, pressure area care and mental health conditions. Staff demonstrated their understanding of these tools and how they provided care in line with good practice. One person said, “The staff are well trained.” They went on to describe how staff support them appropriately with the use of moving and handling equipment and oxygen therapy. A relative said, “Staff are very attuned to people’s needs and seem to know their jobs very well.”

The provider 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 worked in partnership with external professionals, such as District Nurses, GP’s and social workers to support people’s needs. When people moved between services, such as to a hospital, they took up to date information with them about their needs to support continuity of their care.

Staff told us there was a supportive and open culture within the team and they all worked well together. They told us there were regular meetings and the registered manager kept them up to date with any changes to people’s needs or ways of working.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Care records showed referrals to external professionals, for example Speech and Language therapists or tissue viability nurses, were made in a timely way when needed. During our inspection we also saw staff contacting various healthcare services for advice when they were concerned about a person. One person told us how staff were very good and would notice ‘just by looking at them’ if they were poorly and get them help. Another person told us how they can walk a few steps because they had physiotherapy and staff supported their exercises.

Catering staff were knowledgeable about people’s dietary needs. They told us how they worked with people and the staff team to make sure people had the right food and drinks to support both their health needs and preferences.

The provider 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.

Processes were in place to monitor the care and support people received. Recording charts were completed to show, for example what people had eaten, how often they were repositioned and what meaningful activities they had engaged with. The monitoring processes helped staff to identify what was working well or not so well for the person and make any adjustments to their care that were needed in a timely way, including reducing risks.

Records showed, and staff told us, how the monitoring processes had supported improved outcomes for people such as positive weight gain, improved social interactions and reductions in people experiencing distress at certain times of the day.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People consistently told us they were asked for their consent before staff supported them with tasks such as personal care. We saw staff supported people to make day to day decisions and choices about their care in the best ways for them. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how people expressed their choices and decisions and, for example, what the best time of day may be for a person to understand what they were deciding upon or consenting to.

The registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (2005). Where people were not able to make certain decisions, mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had been clearly recorded. Where people were subject to restrictions on their liberty to keep them safe, authorisations had been sought in line with Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).