High Lea House

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 inadequate. 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.

At the last inspection the service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to consent to care. At this inspection we found enough improvements had been made and the service was no longer in breach.

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.

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.

At the last inspection we found people’s needs were not always assessed and reflected in their care plans. Care plan also did not contain detail about people’s preferences, history and religious and cultural needs.

At this inspection we found care plans had been improved, people had been involved in creating them and they reflected their personal preferences. Further improvements were required as we found where people’s needs had changed, not enough information about the changes were always recorded to ensure staff had the information required to support them safely.

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

At the last inspection we could not be assured people received a modified diet when they required it, as the care plans lacked any information about their needs. At this inspection we found care plans had been improved, and relevant information was provided.

We also found at the last inspection monitoring charts were not effective as they lacked detail as to when staff should act based on what they recorded. Whilst we saw improvements in monitoring forms, further improvements were required. For example, where people were losing weight there was no guidance for staff as to what actions should be taken.

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.

At the last inspection we found people’s records were out of date and lacked details about the care and support they required.

At this inspection we found this had improved, for example, care plans had been reviewed and updated, and the provider had included people in this process. However, further improvements were need in the level of detail provided in some care plans and the monitoring of people’s needs.

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.

At the last inspection we found referrals were not always made when people required additional support with their healthcare. At this inspection we found referrals were now made when required.

We found improvements to care plans meant guidance from healthcare professionals was now recorded for staff to follow, but improvements were required to ensure the correct level of detail was recorded. For example, catheter care plans did not include guidance on what to do if it became blocked or dislodged.

The service had not employed an activity co-ordinator since the last inspection and continued to rely on care staff finding the time to organise activities, but they told us this was not always possible due to people’s needs and the staffing levels.

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.

At our last inspection we found people had not been involved in developing and reviewing their plans of care, therefore we could not be assured people were supported to achieve positive, personalised outcomes.

At this inspection we found people had been consulted about new care plans that had been created and these now contained personal information

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

At the last inspection we found people could not be assured that where they had capacity to make decisions they would be consulted as set out in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and where they required their liberties restricted the provider would follow the process in the Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards (DoLS).

At this inspection the provider told us they had recognised a lack of knowledge within the management and staff team around the legislation. To address this, they had arranged refresher training for everyone.

The provider was also consulting with the relevant departments responsible for DoLS at the local authority to ensure all people would have suitable authorisation for any restrictions placed on their liberties.