Gloucestershire Community Support Services

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 Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

We identified some assessments of people’s mental capacity were not carried out in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Some decision specific mental capacity assessments lacked sufficient detail around how the discussion with the person was carried out, how staff tried different times of the day and what options had been discounted. The manager acknowledged some of these assessments required review and said this had been identified already. We found one person did not have any mental capacity assessments at all in their records. Decision specific mental capacity assessments were not always referred to in care records and risk assessments. This put staff at risk of not knowing all relevant information about people if they only read the care records. Staff told us how people were empowered to make their own choices when they go shopping and were supported to assist with cleaning and laundry. Staff communicated with people about their choices when they did not use verbal communication. Staff told us how they used objects of reference, sign language, visual aids and talking mats. However, records did not always include how either through verbal or non-verbal means people were able to refuse or give consent for specific decisions.