Hoyland Hall Residential Home

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 changed to requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 50 (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 check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People’s needs were assessed but not always actioned in line with the outcome of the review. For example, 1 person’s care records identified that a fluid chart should be in place for a week and then reviewed. The registered manager was not aware why this was in place. There was no evidence of escalation when only small amount of fluid had been consumed. The provider told us action had been taken to ensure better monitoring of people’s needs took place.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. The management team acknowledged care planning documentation required improving. A focus group had been set up to carry out this work. However, we were not fully assured that important information was recorded in care planning documentation. People told us they enjoyed their meals and the catering team were knowledgeable about people’s dietary requirements.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services. Systems in place did not support staff to share and pass on important information about people’s care to enable them to offer consistent care. Staff and leaders did not always keep information up to date and therefore care plans did not always reflect people’s current needs. For example, the registered manager told us that handover sessions between staff were not recorded but took place. The management team told us daily flash meetings were under review and required further work to ensure they were implemented correctly. Following our inspection the provider took action to ensure communication between staff improved.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. People had access to healthcare professionals. However, care plans were not always reflective of people’s health needs and did not always guide staff in delivering appropriate care and support. Where care plans explained how people’s needs should be met, there was a lack of evidence to show appropriate checks had been carried out. For example, where people required safety checks, documents did not always record they had been completed in line with people’s assessed needs.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Care plans identified a care plan aim, goal and outcome. However, they did not always meet people's currently assessed needs, and they were not always monitored to ensure positive outcomes were achieved.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. The service was not always working in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. There was lack of evidence to demonstrate people had been involved in decisions about their care. Where people lacked capacity to consent, decisions had not always been made in people’s best interests. For example, best interest decisions had not always been considered or the least restrictive options explored.We saw parts of the home and outside space were locked and there was no evidence of conversations or assessments to justify this. We observed staff interacting with people and found they explained the task they were carrying out and sought their consent.