63 Coronation 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. The service assessed people prior to admission to ensure their needs could be met. This involved the use of appropriate assessment tools and considered people’s mental health support needs, communication, and the compatibility of people’s needs with one another. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the people they supported and confirmed they had access to sufficient information before people began 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.People’s needs were identified and supported in line with good practice and current guidance. Support plans included information about people’s specific dietary requirements, preferences and risks. For example, where people required support with diabetes or chose to follow a vegan diet. We observed a positive mealtime experience; people were encouraged to contribute and maintain independence in this area. A person said, “They always cook good meals.” Policies, procedures and training supported staff to meet individual needs and work in line with best practice and required standards.

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 had access to the information they needed to deliver people’s care and support. Relevant details were shared between services to support coordination and continuity of care. Staff worked with health professionals to ensure people’s needs were met. Feedback from professionals was positive regarding partnership working. A professional said, “I worked collaboratively with [person] and the staff team to develop a safety plan. Staff were engaged, understood the associated risks, and communicated updates to me appropriately.” Staff told us information was shared effectively within the team, for example during daily handover meetings. A staff member said, “Communication is very clear.”

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. Staff supported people to manage their own health where possible and helped them attend appointments and complete tasks to stay well. A person said, “Staff take me in the car for health services.” People received encouragement to make healthy choices and stay physically active, based on their needs and preferences. Support plans provided information about each person’s medical conditions and health needs. Professionals were positive about the support provided in this area. A professional said, “Staff who have supported [person] to attend appointments have consistently demonstrated a person centred and supportive approach.” Another professional commented, "I have monthly catch ups with the team about the residents to assess their health needs and visit the home when required."

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. People’s support plans had been recently reviewed and included outcomes, as well as guidance for staff on how these outcomes would be achieved. People told us they were satisfied with the support they received from the service. They said they were able to make day to day decisions about their care and support and were involved in reviewing their support plans, in line with their wishes. A person said, “Whatever I ask they usually do.”

Whilst the provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People’s consent to care and treatment was not always appropriately documented. During the assessment, we identified sections in people’s support plans relating to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) were not completed. This was also highlighted in a recent provider audit. Staff showed us records confirming people’s consent had since been obtained for support with medication and finances; however, consent relating to other aspects of their care was not well documented. Staff told us, for some people, this information had not been transferred when the service moved from paper-based records to an electronic care planning system. The provider told us they would take action to address this. While staff had completed MCA training, not all demonstrated a sufficient understanding of the Mental Capacity Act. We observed, and people told us, people’s choices were respected and staff sought verbal consent before providing support.