Duke Street Bungalows

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 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 and they were fully involved with this process.

People’s needs were assessed and reviewed, however there was not always evidence to show how people had input into these reviews and were involved with this process. The registered manager told us that staff knew people well and what they liked and disliked, which we saw, however in line with right support, right care, right culture guidance, people’s involvement should be at the forefront of the support they receive.

In addition, some care plans and risk assessments were not always in place or up to date, which meant assessments were not always fully effective.

Relatives felt involved with the assessment process and were aware of people’s plans.

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

As reported throughout this report, right support, right care, right culture guidance was not always fully implemented as people were not always at the centre of their care. Improvements were needed to ensure all care that was delivered, such as activities were individual to the person and they were fully involved with all aspects of decisions and choices. Not always delivering an evidence-based model of care meant we were not assured that people consistently received care and support that met their individual needs or promoted good health and wellbeing outcomes.

However, there were tools in place that were used to assess people’s needs. Staff were able to explain how they delivered care to people and had a good understanding of people’s needs.

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

Relatives were happy with how all the services worked together. They told us they felt involved with their relations care and were kept up to date.

Staff worked well together, this included sharing information about people through daily notes and handovers. There was a system in place to ensure the staff team worked together and alongside other professionals to deliver care to people. Health professionals spoke positively about the service.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control.

People’s health needs were not always effectively managed. For example, 1 person was diabetic. Staff had identified a change in their blood sugar readings and had referred to the relevant health professional for advice. The team leader showed us a letter which was dated May 2026, the letter stated interim measures to put in place to manage the person’s health needs whilst they awaited further review. There was no up to date care plan or risk assessment in place that showed the recommendations from the health professional. We viewed this person’s daily notes and there was no reference to the person receiving the interim measures that had been recommended. Staff we spoke with told us they felt the recommendations were followed, but were unable to show this was completed on a consistent basis as the records did not show this.

However, people and relatives confirmed people’s health needs were responded to.One person told us, “I can see the doctor”. A relative told us how they were working with the home to manage a health condition. Another relative commented, “They take her to the Doctor and Dentist. If there are any changes, they let me know”.

Other people had individual care plans and risk assessments in place for their health needs, including when they had an Epilepsy diagnosis. These health needs were identified, assessed and reviewed. When people needed support from external health professionals, there was a system to ensure referrals were made. People had regular health appointments and reviews, including access to the dentist, chiropodist and the doctor.

Hospital passports were available should people be required to attend hospital. These detailed people’s needs including their communication, mobility and health needs. Staff were aware of these plans and would take them to hospital with people if needed. The registered manager told us when people were in hospital, they provided them with additional support hours to ensure a staff member was present with them throughout their stay to ensure continuity, consistency and a familiar face was available. Relatives we spoke with confirmed this to us.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it.

There were systems in place to ensure people’s needs were identified, assessed and reviewed to ensure positive outcomes were achieved for people. However, improvements were needed to show that people had always been fully involved with this process.

We saw case studies where positive outcomes had been achieved for people. This included how 2 people had been on a holiday on an aeroplane, something which they had not experienced previously. Staff had worked with a person to support them to visit culturally appropriate shops so they could buy suitable hair and skincare products. Other examples included how staff supported a person after the passing of a relative to attend the funeral and a group swimming session which had taken place to establish if this maybe something people may enjoy in the future. We saw photographs of people enjoying these activities.

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

Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were in place when needed to ensure the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was applied. Where needed people had access to advocates. Staff had received training in this area and were aware of the processes to follow.