Welshwood Manor

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 remained 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 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Care plans were not always accurate, complete, or up to date, and did not consistently contain sufficient detail about people’s needs, which meant there was a risk care was not always planned or delivered in line with people’s current requirements. Systems for assessing risk were not always effective in identifying risks to people’s safety and welfare. Consequently, care plans did not consistently contain all relevant risk information to support the safe delivery of care.

Due to concerns, there was a CQC imposed restriction on admissions into the service at the time of our inspection. Where an admission was requested, the manager contacted CQC to seek approval. Following this process, 3 requests for short stay respite care had been requested. These assessments were completed to a good standard.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them. They did not always follow current evidence-based good practice and standards.

We found care was not always provided in accordance with current evidence-based best practice. Training records and care plans required improvement to support the delivery of safe, consistent care. These findings were discussed with management team, who had commenced action to address the concerns identified. At this inspection we found some improvements, but this was work in progress but there were still inconsistencies and any improvements needed embedding.

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.

The management team understood how to seek support from health and social care staff when required. Staff received a handover at the start of each shift which provided them with all necessary information and described an improved and more positive team working environment since the last inspection.

The provider had systems in place to support people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control, however, they were not fully effective. We identified concerns during this assessment regarding support provided to people regarding their health and wellbeing.

Care staff were able to describe how they would respond in a medical emergency and access support from external health and social care professionals. However, provider systems did not consistently identify, monitor and review safety concerns. This meant there was not always effective oversight to ensure changes in people's needs or emerging risks were recognised and escalated appropriately through referrals to relevant professionals.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. Care plans still required improvement to ensure they were fully person centred and accurately reflected people’s care and support needs and any risks to their well-being and safety. The manager was taking action, along with newly recruited senior staff, to address this at the time of our inspection and were reviewing all care plans to make the necessary amendments and improvements.

The provider did not tell people about their rights around consent or respect these when delivering care and treatment. At the last inspection we were concerned that, for some people, their care was delivered to meet the needs of the service and not according to what was in people’s best interests. At this inspection we still found that care was delivered to meet the needs of the service and not according to what was in people’s best interests. Some mental capacity assessments were completed; however, best interest decisions were not always undertaken which meant there was not always clear evidence that decisions had been made in line with the Mental Capacity Act. Training was provided but not all relevant staff had completed this.