Archived: HF Trust Rendle 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 requires improvement. 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 62 (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.

Care plans were updated regularly and when people’s needs changed. People and their relatives were involved in developing care plans. Person centred planning meetings were arranged and relevant family members asked to contribute alongside the person. This helped ensure people’s voices were heard and they were able to contribute to the care planning process.

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 were supported in line with evidence based best practice. For example, when people expressed their feelings in a way which put themselves or others at risk, referrals were made to an internal positive behaviour management support team. They were able to work with the person and staff to develop effective and person-centred ways of supporting them.

A recognised pain scale was used to assess indicators of pain in people who might find it difficult to clearly verbalise their needs. This was in line with best practice guidelines.

The service was based in a rural location with limited facilities in easy reach. However, staff worked to support people in line with Right support, right care, right culture guidance, ensuring people went out regularly and used the local café and pub.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services.

A health care professional told us it sometimes took a long time for actions to be followed up. They commented “Some health needs [are] not fully followed up with GP, needed prompting from [external agency] to action.”

One person had seen a dentist in July 2025 when it had been identified they may have some decay in one of their teeth. Records showed a follow up appointment was to be booked in the next 2 weeks. This had not been arranged by Rendle House putting the person at risk of unnecessary ongoing pain.

Staff told us they communicated well as a team. Some staff had assigned responsibilities such as health and safety checks. The interim manager was hoping to identify a communications champion on the staff team. This supported a consistent approach with clear lines of responsibility.

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 had annual health checks and well woman/man checks. Easy read information was provided so staff could support people to understand complex information prior to any health checks.

Staff supported people to eat well and take regular exercise. One person attended a weekly keep fit group. A relative told us, “My loved one is encouraged to eat healthy but if they want an unhealthy option, that’s OK but they will be encouraged to go for the healthy option the next day. Most of the time, it works.”

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive andconsistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Daily records were kept to evidence how people had spent their time and what support they had received. Records were task based and largely focused on what people had eaten. There was very little information to record quality of life outcomes, such as when people had had a good day and what had worked well for them. A manager told us they had identified record keeping as an area for improvement and additional training had been booked.

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

People had not always been consulted when decisions were made about their care and support. We found a decision had been made for one person not to have a specific health check. There was no evidence they had been provided with any information about the procedure. We raised this with the interim manager who took immediate steps to address this, for example, gathering easy read information to support the person’s understanding.