Mrs P M Eales t/a Just Homes - 3 New Hill

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 71 (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. Risk assessments were completed. Staff told us they worked with GPs regarding annual medicines reviews or more frequently if a person’s needs changed. Care plans included guidance for staff to follow when people showed signs of distress.

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. People’s care records included guidance for staff to support people. Staff told us they were supported by health professionals such as the district nurse, occupational therapist and followed Speech and Language therapy (SALT) guidance. Staff followed universally recognised tools when prepare people’s food to reduce their risk of choking. One staff member told us, “We contacted the occupational therapist (OT) for help and advice and [OT] has been very supportive in getting [person] the equipment that we needed.”

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. Staff told us they worked well with doctors, physiotherapists, district nurses. social services and the local authority when supporting people. Staff told us they followed advice from healthcare professionals and supported people with their medical appointments. Comments included, “I would say that we have a really good communication, and collaboration between the service and external partners” and they “Communicate with doctors and professionals, physiotherapist, community district nurses.”

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. Care records included information about daily and nighttime routines and the personal care support people needed. People were supported with activities such as going to the cinema and shopping. Staff told us they supported people’s healthcare concerns by “Active listening and watching nonverbal cues” and if, “It’s a concern we would get in touch with the professionals for help and advice, and record any changes in behaviour or concerns.”
Relatives told us staff were aware of people’s health needs and staff did whatever they could to support people. Relatives told us they were informed if people needed to see the GP and go to the hospital. Relatives told us staff knew people’s dietary needs and preferences and relatives told us, they have been informed if [person] required to see a doctor and the food was of good quality.
 

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. The provider reviewed care plans. However, we received feedback not all relatives were involved in reviewing care plans. The staff actioned handovers which meant information regarding people was shared between staff. Staff told us they would report concerns to the GP, nurse, emergency services if they identified any changes in people’s needs, such as, behavioural, physical, anxiety and pain. Relatives told us staff monitored people’s health and referred them to healthcare services appropriately. Comments included, “Yes they will call a doctor, take [person] to the doctor or a doctor would come to the home” and “When [person] was poorly, I knew [person] was being looked after and they got [person] to the hospital.”

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. When people's Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs) had expired, the provider did not always show they had followed this up with the relevant professionals. Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had not always been completed. For example, when changes were made to a person’s room, there was no evidence to show who had been involved in these decisions and no evidence to show the provider worked collaboratively with people around them. However, we acknowledge some mental capacity assessments had been actioned, for example, in relation to personal care and use of equipment, such as a lap belt. Relatives were not aware if consent was obtained from people before taking any action, for example, in relation to personal care.