Medway House

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.

People's needs were assessed on admission and reviewed these when circumstances changed. Care plans reflected people's physical health, mobility, communication and support needs. Staff reviewed and updated them when professional assessments identified changes in people's needs.

Records showed staff worked with people, their families and other professionals to ensure assessments remained current and accurately reflected people's needs.

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 saw evidence that advice from specialists, including GPs and others, informed the support people received and helped ensure care and treatment reflected current evidence-based practice.

For example, following observations a person’s mobility had changed, staff incorporated professional recommendations into the support they provided to help manage changing mobility needs safely. Staff also sought advice from healthcare professionals when people's needs changed and used this to guide the care and treatment they delivered.

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 told us information sharing between everyone involved in people’s care was effective. A staff member said, “We have handovers, and team meetings. we share relevant information with the team and professionals, such as GPs and other health teams.”

The registered manager told us, “We communicate with external agencies to improve the individual’s safety and care quality, ensuring that their needs are understood and acted upon.”

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 were encouraged to maintain their independence, and staff supported them to make choices and have control over their daily lives. Whilst there was good practice in managing health conditions and partnership working with other professionals, improvements could be made when it came to activities on offer. This is important as stimulating activities contribute to physical, social, emotional and mental wellbeing.

Staff worked with healthcare professionals as and when required to ensure people had access to health services and their medical needs were met. A relative told us, “They always let me know when [person] has amedical appointment and what was the outcome, I do wish they had more activities for [person] they enjoy music but don’t get out to enjoy it.”

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 experienced positive outcomes because of the care and support provided by staff. People’s care and support were regularly reviewed to ensure their assessed needs were met and expected outcomes achieved. Systems were in place to monitor the care and support provided to people to ensure this remained effective.

One staff member said, “We promote independence by supporting and encouraging the people we support to do as much as they can by themselves, such as washing up and doing laundry.”

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

The provider failed to ensure people were always supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and associated code of practice. This had the potential to reduce people’s human rights.

The MCA provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any decisions made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

Mental Capacity Assessments had been completed and considered for most restrictions. However, the manager had not taken into consideration the blanket restriction of the fridge and freezer in the house, which was locked. They could not demonstrate that these were proportionate and the least restrictive option available. We spoke with the manager, and they assured us they had already identified this as an area for improvement and were reviewing records to ensure they contained more detailed, person-centred information regarding best interest decisions.