Sawley

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. Assessments of people's needs had been carried prior to people using the service and involved the person and, where appropriate, their relatives and healthcare professionals, to ensure the service was able meet the person's needs and preferences. Care plans and risk assessments clearly identified people's needs and risks. They showed the action staff should take to minimise any risk of avoidable harm. The manager told us how ensured people were supported with the tailored transition they required to feel comfortable about moving into Sawley, the manager also considered the impact on others already using the service.

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. We found care plans in place detailed important information which linked with current good practice on how to support people with their health conditions. This provided staff with information about the condition and the indicators they needed to be aware of which could be a sign of a person’s health deteriorating. Care plans and risk assessments had been regularly reviewed and updated and relatives confirmed they were kept informed of any changes.

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. Records confirmed how staff worked with external professionals when required to develop people’s care plans and risk assessments. For example, one person’s care plan evidenced the involvement of several other agencies to ensure their needs were being safely met. Staff spoke positively about how they worked together to meet people's needs.

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. Accessible information was available to people on a range of topic’s this included healthy eating. Staff regularly met with people to discuss their physical and emotional health and the support available to them. People told us how staff positively supported them with their wellbeing by supporting them to pursue their hobbies and interests, relatives also confirmed this.

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. The manager evidenced to us the systems in place to ensure people were supported to achieve their desired goals. The manager regularly met with people to track their progress. We saw many examples of the goals people had achieved since using the service, such as going on holiday and learning new skills which aided their independence.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People had mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions in place when relevant. These had involved people who had the legal authority to do so on behalf of the person where appropriate. Staff had received training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and were knowledgeable on how to support people in line with the act. We observed staff support people’s decision throughout our inspection. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found the service had made appropriate Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications and monitored the progress of the applications.