Mulberry 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.
 

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

At our last inspection we found people’s needs were not always fully assessed, at this inspection we found improvements had been made. The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People had been supported to medical appointments. Care plans were in place for people’s assessed needs, these contained relevant advice and guidance for staff.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. During our last assessment, we found care plans were not up to date and there was limited evidence people had been involved in planning their care. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made. People’s views were incorporated into their care plans, including their likes, dislikes, interests and hobbies. Where people had developed goals, these were easy to understand and track progress and were broken down into achievable steps.

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. Where people required input of other professionals, this was clearly recorded in their care plans. We saw evidence of the provider working with other professionals, for example, physiotherapy.

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. For example, one 1 person needed regular support to promote their mobility. Staff supported the person with their rehabilitation routines, and the person was making good progress. The person’s relative told us, “Staff are doing well with [person] and support them to use their specialised mobility aid. I know it is not just staff doing it when I am there as I can see the improvement in [person’s] mobility. [Person] has gone from strength to strength thanks to the staff helping and their care.”

Where people had ongoing health conditions, this was recorded in care plans and contained information about what support might be required, however we found some information was generic and would benefit from being more person centred. For example, information had been taken directly for general online sources intended for the public, rather than being tailored to reflect the person’s own experiences, needs and presentation.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Where people’s capacity was unclear, the provided completed mental capacity assessments. Where people lacked capacity, the provider recorded best interest decisions. Deprivation of liberty safeguards referrals were applied for appropriately where this was required.