Valerie Manor

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 Outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 assessed before they moved into the service and regularly reviewed to ensure they were receiving appropriate support. Protected characteristics and diverse needs under the Equality Act formed part of this process. For example, people’s religious needs and preferences were captured and accommodated.

People received care, treatment and support that was evidence-based and in line with good practice standards. The providers’ systems ensured that staff were up to date with national legislation and required standards.

Assessments of people's care and risks were supported by use of best practise tools. For example, evidence-based guidance such as the malnutrition universal screening tool was used to help to identify those at risk of malnutrition.

Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan and deliver people’s care, treatment and support.

Information was shared between teams and services to ensure continuity of care, for example when tasks were delegated. Handovers between staff meant that information was shared promptly.

When people received care from a range of different staff, teams or services, it was coordinated effectively. One professional said, “The care and support provided is adequate. Problems are dealt with well, GPs are called out if I raise a concern.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing. People’s health and clinical needs were monitored and reviewed regularly by nursing and care staff. Appropriate and timely referrals were made to health partners when additional support was identified.

People’s dietary needs were identified and catered for. When people had been identified as needing additional support to eat, referrals to speech and language therapists were made for those needing assistance with swallowing, and meals were fortified to improve nutritional intake.

People spoke positively about the quality of their meals. One person said, “The food is excellent. I can’t eat [some foods], [the chef] knows and I don’t have all that. She’s got to know me. She’s very receptive.” Another commented, “The food is generally good, but it varies. If you don’t like it, you can send it back and ask for something else. They do a good omelette and salad, it’s lovely.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent.

Outcomes of people’s health and well-being were monitored by staff. Care plans and risk assessments were consistently reviewed and updated to reflect people’s changing needs. For example, where a risk had been identified, there was consistent recording and monitoring of people’s food and fluid intake to ensure they had appropriate levels of nutrition and hydration. People’s weight was closely monitored and staff ensured that people at risk of skin integrity breakdown were repositioned and monitored.

People understand their rights around consent to the care and treatment and their views and wishes were taken into account when their care was planned. People who had capacity were supported to make choices and consent to their care.

Where people did not have the capacity to make certain decisions, appropriate and decision specific capacity assessments had been carried out. These had been made with those involved in the care, such as family members or health professionals, so that decisions could be made in their best interests.

Staff and management worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. The service maintained an appropriate DoLS (Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards) tracker, which showed three authorisations in place, none of which had conditions attached.