Salthouse 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

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 62 (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 were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with

them.

Assessments of people’s needs were not always clear and accurate. For example, one person’s records contained conflicting information regarding their mental health diagnosis. This meant it was not clear what support they required. The person's mobility had changed but their records did not reflect this. Staff were familiar with people’s needs and acted when there were changes, which reduced the risks to people.

The provider did not use recognised risk assessment tools to help identify, assess and respond to risk regarding people's skin integrity or risk of malnutrition.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment in line with current evidence-based good practice.

Assessments, which guided actions required should people lose weight, were not consistently followed. This increased the risk that changes in people’s needs would not be identified in a timely way.

Records indicated that people had eaten food which was not the correct texture for their needs. A recent internal audit had also identified this, and the registered manager told us staff would receive additional training to reduce the risk to people.

Staff received training in food hygiene and were observed preparing appetising food. Information was available for staff to support people to prepare drinks and meals.

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.

There was effective working across the staff team. They communicated well with one another through verbal handovers and written records. On-call arrangements were in place if staff needed support or advice.

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 access a range of professionals including doctors, occupational therapists and dentists. A professional told us, "Staff are always available for appointments and are adaptable. Sometimes with other places you can feel like an inconvenience; here they're asking for and accepting of the help."

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure there were clear outcomes.

Care plans did not include meaningful goals for people or explore how these might be achieved. Key worker reviews of people’s goals were not consistently updated or explored. Care plans and assessments were not updated to effectively monitor or improve outcomes for people.

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

Staff understood the importance of seeking people's consent. This was included in management observations of staff practice. Appropriate referrals were made to advocacy services.