Hadleigh 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 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 63 (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 was effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Whilst appropriate assessments had been completed, they did not always involve people and their relatives or consider all the relevant history. People’s care plans were not always kept up to date. For example, one person’s behaviour meant they could be a risk to other people; their care plan did not accurately reflect the level of risk or support staff needed to provide to mitigate known risks.

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

The provider recognised that care for people living with dementia was not always provided in line with best practice and was taking action to improve this, including supporting staff to complete training and making changes to the environment. One person’s relative told us, “They seem to have upped the pace, they take him out and do more things with him now. They are dressed better, look cleaner, tidier.”

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. Information was shared effectively across services where appropriate. People’s care plans contained key information to support joined up care, including clear summaries of their individual needs and key contact details for relatives.

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.

People were supported to manage health concerns and timely referrals to health professionals were made where appropriate. People had access to safe outside space and were supported to take exercise. For example, 2 people were supported to go swimming.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure outcomes were positive and consistent, or met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Systems in place to monitor people’s care were not always effective. For example, the quality of records relating to pressure area care and fluid intake varied from day to day, making it difficult for staff to monitor outcomes. This may place people at risk of poor outcomes.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service.

During our last assessment, we found people had been deprived of their liberty without capacity assessments or best interest decisions being recorded. At this assessment, improvements had been made. Mental capacity assessments had been completed and DoLS applications made where appropriate. People were given choices about their day-to-day care. For example, people were shown two plated meals to choose from, supporting people to make an active and informed choice about their food.