Archived: OSJCT Henlow Court

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 –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 remains good. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment was mostly achieved.

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 service assessed and reviewed people’s care and treatment. However, people and their relatives told us they were not always involved in the planning and reviewing of their care. One person told us ‘Don’t know about my care plan but I seem to get the help I need.’ And a relative told us “Been here over a year and we have had no care plan reviews.”

When people’s needs had changed this had not always been updated in individual care plans. For example, where a person weighing method had been changed and subsequent MUST score (multi universal screening tool helps identify people who are at risk of malnutrition or of being obese) not updated.

People’s communication methods were outlined within their care plans to enable them to receive care and treatment which works for them.

We observed the service offering people a nutritious and balanced diet, there were snacks on offer throughout the day. There was clear guidance for kitchen staff to follow for people who were on a specialist diet or had allergies. Kitchen staff told us they had received training on how to produce meals in line with IDDS guidelines (International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative). One staff member told us “we fill up snack baskets and fruit daily”.

The service told us they routinely weighed people, and where people were identified at risk of malnutrition professionals were involved and people’s diets fortified. The provider told us this was in line with national guidance and the provider’s policy. However, we found that people’s care plans were not always updated and where people needed additional support this was not always clearly identified in care plans.

People generally liked the food provided. One person told us “I enjoy the food, good choice and tasty.” And one relative told us “Eating quite well but lost quite a bit of weight may be due to [name] condition-quite picky with food.”

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. The service made referrals for people where additional support was required. The service met regularly with the local GP practice to share and review people’s health. Where people required medical appointments, the service liaised with family and other health professionals and ensured a multi-disciplinary approach was followed.

People and their relatives told us they could access services like opticians and health appointments. One person told us “I’ve been to hospital for checks on my eyes, I have the chiropodist in and not had a dental check lately."

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. People had access to activities. One person told us “‘We have an exercise class we can go to and they help me to get into the garden, which is lovely.” Another person told us “‘They keep an eye on me, but I can do what I can. Nobody ever says you can’t do that.”

We observed one person being supported with a carer in the background allowing the person to move about freely but with support nearby if needed.

People told us they received support to access healthcare, inside and outside of the service.

Although the service did routinely monitor people’s care and treatment, such as falls monitoring and internal review of care plans, they did not always ensure concerns were escalated, records were updated to reflect changes to people’s needs and appropriate monitoring was put in place. However, other areas of care and treatment for example care and falls prevention were improving and people were receiving the right support.

The service respected people’s wishes when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People told us that staff asked for consent before supporting them. One person told us ‘‘The staff always say is it alright to help me get dressed, or washed, they always ask. If I don’t want to do something there and then they will come back later." And another person told us "Always ask me before anything happens like a wash or helping me dress."

We observed staff supporting people sensitively and seeking consent from people before carrying out care.

Care plans demonstrated that relatives were actively involved in supporting people using the service. However, documentation did not consistently clarify whether legal arrangements such as Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) or Deputyship had been applied for or were formally registered. This lack of clarity may impact decision-making processes and accountability. At the time of the assessment this however had not impacted on any care people received.