The Old Vicarage

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

This service scored 62 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always maintain accurate records about their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs.

Assessments were carried out before people arrived at the service to ensure the service could meet their needs. Care plans were in place, but some sections were contradictory, lacking person-centred information or out of date. This meant people were at risk of receiving care which was not in line with their needs.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

Care records were not always person-centred and some contained errors. For example, in some care plans people were referred to by the wrong gender or their names were spelt incorrectly. The electronic care planning system in place was very prescriptive which impacted the provider's ability to produce person-centred care plans. Following the inspection the provider confirmed plans were in place to make improvements to the system.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. Staff worked well together to give people positive effective care.
Staff said management were approachable. We observed staff working well as a team, supporting each other. Health and social care partners shared positive feedback about how staff performed as a team.

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.
Where people were on specialist diets due to health needs, staff ensured people received the appropriate food and drinks. We observed a staff member reminding a person how to use the lift by themselves to help maintain their independence moving around the service.

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.
Care records were reviewed regularly, however these were not always effective reviews as they had not identified the issues we found during the assessment. Monitoring was taking place for example, where people were at risk of losing too much weight, their weight was regularly monitored and action taken if needed.

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

People were supported to have maximum choice and control over their lives. Staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The MCA provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. Staff had received training regarding the MCA and appropriate policies were in place.