Mountjoy Road

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 42 (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 accurately assess people’s health, care and wellbeing needs and make sure their care and treatment was effective.

People did not have their needs accurately assessed. People did not have assessments in place relating to their specific health conditions, such as depression, learning disability and diabetes. Reviews were not always up to date and there were significant gaps and inaccuracies in people’s records which meant their current needs were not clearly identified.

Staff knew people’s communication needs and were able communicate effectively with them. However, there were gaps in documentation in relation to this, for example, information regarding how people communicate pain was not included in as required medicines protocols.

An admission process was in place to assess people prior to admission.

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

Nationally recognised tools were not always in place or used to accurately to assess people’s needs and inform care planning. Where assessment tools had been used the information conflicted with other records. For example, 1 person’s records showed information from 2013 regarding their dietary needs and further stated they needed to be weighed weekly. This information conflicted with the Malnutrition Screening Tool (MUST) which indicated a score of ‘low risk’ and did not stipulate how frequently the person should be weighed. Lack of care planning meant best practice standards and evidence-based advice from health professionals was not accurately documented to support good quality care delivery.

People had enough to eat and drink. Food and fluids were readily available and supported people’s choices. One person told us, “I love the food we get a choice. I like yogurts and fruit for pudding.”

The provider did not always work consistently well across teams and services to effectively support people.

People had access to health professionals when needed. However, clinical information following appointments with professionals was not used to inform risk assessments and care planning, to support safe and effective care. The provider had no effective systems or processes in place to ensure information from professionals was appropriately recorded, shared and used to manage people’s safety.

Staff worked together as a team to respond to people and meet their needs. One staff member told us, “We all help each other. It's very good teamwork here."

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing. They did not always support people to live healthier lives.

People were supported to attend appointments with external services, for example, at the hospital and GP. However, professional advice and outcomes from such appointments were not included in care plans to support effective care delivery. In addition, training in relation to people’s specific health needs was not always in place to ensure staff had the appropriate skills to meet people’s needs safely and support their wellbeing.

Staff knew people’s preferences and supported them to make choices.

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.

Gaps and inaccuracies in records meant we could not be assured care was effectively assessed and planned to support positive outcomes for people. There were no robust systems or processes in place to ensure effective oversight of people's clinical needs and risks. Staff relied on the relationships they had developed with people rather than evidence-based risk assessments and detailed care planning to inform care delivery. A lack of guidance in place to support staff meant people’s physical health deterioration could go unnoticed.

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 working within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and best interest processes were followed where people lacked capacity to make decisions. However, DoLS care plans were not in place to provide guidance for staff in supporting people’s legal rights and safety. Staff did not always know who had DoLS in place.

Staff sought consent before providing support and knew how people communicated this.