Safeharbour (254 Hagley 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 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.

There was a process in place to ensure people’s needs were assessed. The assessments we reviewed considered people’s individual risks, needs and preferences. Relatives and those important to people were involved with the process. A relative told us, “I was involved before [person] moved in and I am still very much involved. My views are listened to, and staff keep me in the loop.”

Staff knew people they were supporting well, including their health and wellbeing needs. People had a communication plan in place which reflected their needs. Staff supported people consistently and understood their communication needs.

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.

The provider understood the current legislation, national standards and evidence-based good practice guidance relevant to their service and applied these effectively. The provider had systems for ensuring they kept up to date and embedded this in their service. For example, the provider analysed data with a view of reducing restrictive practices in accordance with the principles of the restraint reduction network.

The provider based their care plans and risk assessments on best practice guidance and used clinical tools to ensure people’s needs were identified and met.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people.

The provider worked in partnership with external agencies to ensure people’s needs were met. A professional told us, “The staff work well with us, they share information and listen to any recommendations we share.”

Hospital passports were in place to support people accessing health care appointments. These provided key information about people’s needs, communication and accessibility requirements to enable healthcare professionals to be aware of these.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control.

People had health action plans to support them to remain healthy and well.People were supported to choose healthier options to support a healthy diet. Discussions with staff demonstrated how staff monitored people’s well-being, and any changes were recorded and escalated as required. A staff member told us, “We know people well and work closely with them. Any changes in their presentation are monitored as people are not always able to tell us when they are not feeling well.” A relative told us, “The staff are good at monitoring [person] health and ensuring they have all their routine health checks. Any issues they book an appointment to get [person] checked out. They keep me informed.”

When people needed support from external health professionals there was a system to ensure referrals were made and care plans were updated to reflect any changes or recommendations.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. However further improvements were required to ensure records were detailed to reflect people’s progress.

Although people’s skills were part of their care plans, we found these were not always incorporated and reflected in people’s daily wellbeing records, to reflect people’s progress. This was shared with the registered manager who was receptive to this feedback and to improving this.

People’s needs were monitored, and reviews were undertaken with those involved in their care to discuss people’s needs, skills, goals and ambitions. The registered manager told us about some of the individual goals and aspirations people were supported to work towards. These included being independent with personal care tasks, or preparing food, visiting new places and going away on holiday. A relative said, “Staff monitor [person] current needs and help them to try new things as well as doing the things they like.”

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

Care plans considered what decisions people could make for themselves, such as what they chose to wear or eat. For people who were not able to verbalise their choices information was recorded about how some people used objects of reference, visual aids and Makaton to support their consent to specific decisions. A staff member told us, “Some people may not be able to tell us their choices, but they can tell us by using their expressions, writing things down, or by their body language.”

Capacity assessments and best interest decisions were in place when needed to ensure the Mental Capacity Act was applied. Some people were subject to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), but these were not always referred to in people’s care plans. The registered manager agreed to take action to address this.

The service arranged for people to access community and statutory advocates when they needed support to make important decisions.