Archived: Beech Tree Hall

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.

People were supported by staff who knew them well, however, care plans were not always reviewed to ensure people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs were discussed with them. The management team were improving care documentation and had implemented a programme of monthly reviews with people and their advocates to discuss their needs. One relative said, “We have had 2 annual reviews in seven years. Obviously, they should be every year, but it's just not happening.” However, another relative said, “We do have an annual review about [family member] and also get a newsletter regularly.”

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. Hospital passports were in place to support the sharing of information when people moved between services. People were supported to attend appointments with external health professionals. People chose what the ate and were included in menu planning, shopping and meal preparation.

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. However, systems within the service to support staff communication required improvement. Staff we spoke with told us communication was difficult. One staff member said, “As far as workplaces go, I feel we have a pretty good team, I just think that it would be helpful if people could work together more as a team to improve the communication.”

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. One healthcare professional said, “They [staff] had good support from other health professionals and had no hesitation regarding contacting others if needed. They were also transparent regarding medication, diet and follow up appointments and were able to demonstrate their recording.”

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 were supported to maintain contact with their family and friends. For example, 1 person had a plan in place to promote opportunities for them to engage with their family. This included speaking with family members via an iPad and being supported to send daily messages.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff and leaders supported people to be involved in decisions about their care. We saw staff asking for people’s consent prior to carrying out tasks.