Royal College Manchester

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.

People’s needs were comprehensively assessed and frequently reviewed, with updates reflected in their care plans. Regular service reviews took place, and both people and relatives were actively encouraged to participate. One relative told us, “I’m involved in my loved one’s care plan.” Another added, “We had a transition meeting before my loved one moved here. Collaboration and co‑production between myself and staff are what it should be.”

Staff recognised the importance of reviewing needs and tailoring support to reflect any changes. They were encouraged to provide feedback about people’s needs, and their views were valued. One staff member described how they were given a role supporting their team with communication and developing communication aids. They proudly explained how they helped to amplify one person’s voice and enable them to communicate their needs more easily.

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 and relatives were actively involved in care planning, and staff had a strong understanding of how to meet people’s individual needs. For example, for one person, who was blind staff used tactile identifiers such as distinctive textures on lanyards or glasses so they

could recognise staff through touch. Staff also described how they used these identifiers to help keep the person safe in the community, as they enabled the person to distinguish between staff and strangers.

A staff member shared, “At Seashell, we don’t think just about people, we always think about a person.” A relative told us, “Staff know my loved one very well. They remove any anxiety. Their fluids need to be managed, and staff know exactly how much they need. They also work with me on their diet.”

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 collaborated well with each other and with external professionals to ensure people received safe, high‑quality care. The provider maintained positive relationships with stakeholders and professionals, contributing to improved outcomes.

The registered manager emphasised the importance of meeting people’s needs safely, saying, “We do not take emergency placements, and we will not go over 36 people we support. This is to ensure we can meet people’s needs safely.” Staff told us they felt supported and confident to raise concerns. One said, “I feel I can be very open and raise any concerns. I would go to the house manager.” Another added, “We work very closely as a team. I had to raise concerns about my colleague, and I know this was dealt with.”

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 understood people’s individual needs and preferences and ensured support was person‑centred. People were encouraged to lead active, healthy lives and to participate in a wide range of on‑site and community activities. A relative told us, “My loved one goes swimming and goes to the local shops.” Another said, “They have access to different opportunities and now they are happy.”

Staff emphasised the importance of offering choices. One staff member described supporting a person with their weekly outing to a local restaurant where they enjoyed eating pasta. People’s cultural and religious dietary needs were also met for, example, halal meals were available for those who required them. Staff encouraged people to take part in everyday tasks, such as doing their own shopping or helping to prepare meals.

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.

Staff knew people well and worked in ways that recognised each person’s strengths, skills and aspirations. Staff spoke passionately about helping people achieve their goals and took pride in their progress. For example, one staff member described supporting a person who was anxious about attending a weekly community disco. Through gentle support, the person now attended regularly and enjoyed watching from a distance.

Another person with communication difficulties was supported to use objects of reference to make choices. Staff were helping them develop further by introducing additional objects to expand the person’s vocabulary and increase their independence.

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

They had appropriate systems and processes to meet their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). This included conducting capacity assessments, supporting people to understand decisions, and involving relatives when making best-interest decisions. Systems were in place to review, reduce and remove restrictions to ensure they remained proportionate and tailored to people’s needs.

Staff received training on the MCA and demonstrated good understanding. One staff member said, “It’s important to support a person to make a decision. I won’t do it for them unless it’s proven they can’t.”

We observed staff seeking consent before offering support. For example, a staff member asked a person if they wanted assistance before helping them to walk to their bedroom.