The Court

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 the last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection 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.

Staff made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Staff described a strong person‑centred approach and involvement of people in care planning. While staff knowledge of people was good, this was not always consistently reflected in written assessments and reviews. The provider had introduced a new electronic care record system and staff were in the process of recording all relevant information. We discussed how these could be enhanced by the inclusion of more specific information about people’s care and support needs.

Care and treatment was delivered in line with current best practice and supported by evidence-based tools. Staff demonstrated strong knowledge and understanding around how to work with Autistic people. Staff consistently described using agreed approaches to support people safely and effectively. Staff confirmed they had access to appropriate training to deliver care in line with people’s needs. A staff member said, “Sincejoining NEAS I’ve got all my training. I am ahead of it, I also have my level 3 diploma which I thought I’d never have.”

Staff 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. Staff described strong teamwork and mutual support across the service. Staff worked effectively with health and social care professionals, including community learning disability teams to make sure care was tailored to people’s needs. They discussed how the range of training provided really assisted them to deliver good care and support.

Staff supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. People’s nutritional needs and preferences were assessed and well understood by staff. Staff had a good knowledge of people’s preferences and dislikes regarding food. Staff helped people access healthcare professionals promptly, and relatives described being informed quickly when concerns arise. People’s emotional wellbeing was supported through caring interactions, and staff showed empathy and patience.

Staff routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Quality assurance processes included regular audits of medication, infection control, and care environment, with action plans implemented promptly. Staff had found techniques which reduced distress such as people being easily calmed through listening, reassurance, and meaningful conversation. One relative told us, “It is great to see how well [person] gets along with the staff. I cannot speak too highly of this organisation we are so very lucky.”

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act and associated codes of practice. They had received training around the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and associated code of practice. Capacity assessments and ‘best interest decisions’ were in place, but these needed extending to cover a wider range of decisions. For example, decisions to restrict access to items that might cause them harm.