The Mead

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 67 (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 were effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Staff completed a care assessment before people moved into the home. Staff assessed people’s needs and developed care plans based on these assessments. We found some information needed to be reviewed and updated; however, the manager had already identified this and was working on improving assessments and care records. Family members were kept informed about any changes in people’s wellbeing, helping to ensure care remained effective and appropriate.

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 Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) was not always accurately recorded within people’s care plans. This had been identified in a recent audit, and the new manager was making sure the care plans were accurate.

Staff encouraged people to eat and drink as needed, while respecting their preferences and independence. A weekly menu plan was developed, involving people and staff. People’s likes and dislikes were taken into consideration.

Where required, people had care plans in place to support specific dietary needs, such as modified diets or support from speech and language professionals.

We received mixed feedback about the food. Some liked it, whilst others felt improvement was required. Comments included, “Food is pretty basic; we get a choice but nothing very exciting,” and “Yes, I am really pleased with food choices, I would say it’s okay.” At the time of the site visit, the home was recruiting for a permanent chef and acknowledged this role had proved hard to recruit into.

Staff 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 demonstrated effective team working and maintained positive relationships with external professionals, including health and social care services. Communication systems, such as daily records and handovers, ensured important information was shared appropriately. This supported continuity of care and a consistent approach to meeting 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. People told us they were able to see doctors and other healthcare professionals when needed and were satisfied with the support they received. Relatives told us staff were good at recognising and responding to changes in people’s needs and made referrals in a timely manner.

Staff 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 provider used a range of quality assurance systems, including surveys, to review people’s experiences and outcomes.

People’s care plans were in need of review and updating but staff had access to information about planned appointments, such as medicines reviews with healthcare professionals.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) establishes the legal framework for decision-making on behalf of people who may lack the capacity to make specific decisions themselves. The MCA requires that, wherever possible, individuals are supported to make their own decisions. When a person is assessed as lacking capacity for a particular decision, any decision made on their behalf must be in their best interests and represent the least restrictive option available. Where people were assessed as lacking capacity, mental capacity assessments had been completed but lacked some detailed evidence of discussion, understanding or support provided.

We identified one person who did not have a best interest decision completed for administering medicines covertly. We brought this to the attention of senior staff during the site visit who told us they would update the person’s care plan.

Staff we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of the principles of the MCA. One staff member told us, " I ask for people's consent before I support them."