Arshad Mahmood - 56-58 Carlton 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 remained Good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The provider worked with people, relatives and professionals to ensure needs were assessed, understood and regularly reviewed. People had detailed risk assessments and care plans which were updated when their needs changed. This included referrals to physiotherapy and SALT. Relatives told us they were involved in assessments of their loved ones needs. A relative told us, “They contact me and I go in to discuss the care plans and we have a review.” These assessments informed personalised care plans that accurately reflected people’s current needs, preferences and health conditions.

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.

There was clear evidence that people’s wishes and preferences were consistently documented within their care plans. These records captured how each person preferred to receive care. The documentation included personal preferences such as chosen foods, hobbies and preferred social interest.

During our visit, it was evident that staff had a good understanding of people’s needs. Throughout our observations, staff members were meaningfully engaging with supporting people through activity, conversation or providing assistance when needed. This immediate and attentive approach contributed positively to the overall environment, ensuring that people felt supported and valued.

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.

During our visit, we noted good teamwork among staff members. Staff were seen engaging in open discussions about the tasks that required completion and consulting with people regarding their preferences for daily activities. In addition, we observed that daily notes and handover notes were being properly completed, indicating effective communication and information sharing between staff teams.

One staff member said, “We regularly discuss people’s needs and are encouraged to raise concerns with the manager.”

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.

Based on our observations and feedback from staff and relatives, we found clear evidence that people received annual health appointments and appointments being arranged when they required them. This included a range of essential services, such as opticians' appointments, dental check-ups, and routine health assessments with GPs.

There was fresh fruit available in the kitchen and there were fresh vegetables available in the refrigerator. The meal plan offered choice and healthy options were in place for each day of the week.

Appointments made by the provider were recorded in the appropriate person’s care records, with details recorded of any follow up appointments that may be required. Each person had a hospital passport and a ‘grab file’ located in the front of their ‘resident’s folder’ in case of emergency, or unplanned hospital stay.

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.

Staff tracked people’s weight, mobility changes, and changes in behaviour. Records showed timely escalation, including GP referrals. Some escalations led to improved outcomes, such as reduced distress, and increased participation in everyday activities. People’s outcomes and achievements were discussed within reviews, team meetings and where appropriate with people’s loved ones.

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

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and applied them appropriately. People were supported to make choices wherever possible, and staff used personalised communication strategies such as Makaton. Staff could clearly explain how they assessed people’s mental capacity, sought consent and involved the manager if relatives or professionals were required when best interest decisions were needed.

Relatives told us staff respected their loved one’s choices, with one saying, “Staff always ask what people would like and give options if the person can’t decide. They treat them as an equal".

When inspecting the service, we could hear people being given choice and asked if they would like assistance in completing tasks, and staff waiting for a response before completing any actions.