Watery Lane Cottage

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 67 (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 health, care, wellbeing and communication needs had been reviewed to reflect their current needs and preferences. The provider worked with relevant healthcare professionals to assess and monitor people’s health needs to ensure they received appropriate support. For example, specialist advice and guidance were sought to help support people living with epilepsy safely and effectively.

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.

People had personalised plans to support their health and wellbeing needs. These provided staff with clear guidance on how to support people safely and consistently. For example, one person had a mental health support plan which detailed the signs that their mental health may be deteriorating, the support they may need, and the health professionals’ staff should contact if they had concerns. This helped staff respond appropriately and ensure the person received timely support when required.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. Staff gave mixed feedback about teamwork. Staff said communication and teamwork could be inconsistent depending on the staff working on a shift. Staff told us some colleagues did not always communicate effectively or share important information with each other.

A health professional told us staff worked cooperatively with external health professionals, including the local learning disability health team. However, some Professionals told us communication and information sharing to support people’s assessments was sometimes slow.

However, one staff member described their work as rewarding and said they worked together to meet people’s needs and achieve positive outcomes for people.

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.

People were supported to attend healthcare appointments when needed. Records showed people were supported to eat a varied and balanced diet, including fruit, salads and vegetables. This helped promote healthy lifestyle and support people’s overall health and wellbeing.

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.

Staff monitored people’s health and took appropriate action when concerns were identified. For example, people’s weights were monitored regularly where required to help identify any changes in their health or wellbeing. Additionally, staff monitored and recorded one person’s seizure activity. This information helped staff identify patterns and trends, monitor the effectiveness of treatment, and share accurate information with health care professionals to support the person’s ongoing care. Records were generally completed consistently and provided staff with up-to-date information about people’s needs. However, we found some gaps in daily records including food and fluid charts, which had not always been completed in full. The provider had identified this and was taking steps to improve the consistency of record keeping and oversight of care records.

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

Mental capacity assessments had been completed when required. Where people lacked capacity to make specific decisions, best interest decisions were made to support their care and treatment.

However, the provider had not always involved relevant people, such as relatives or healthcare professionals, in best interest decisions. This meant best interest decision-making was not always informed by a full understanding of the person’s wishes, feelings, preferences and needs. The provider said they would complete a full review of people’s mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions and ensure appropriate people were involved in discussions.

However, staff sought people’s consent before providing support and encouraged people to make choices about their daily lives.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and were able to demonstrate an understanding of its principles.