Archived: OSJCT Seymour 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 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 told us their needs had been assessed before they moved into the service. Managers completed assessments of people’s needs before they were offered a place in the service. The manager told us they tried to match people’s needs with the home and other people and wouldn’t offer a place to people if they couldn’t meet their needs. Staff told us they received good information about 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. People and their relatives told us staff provided good support to meet their needs, including support to meet their nutrition and hydration needs. Staff completed training in nutrition and food safety to ensure their knowledge was up to date. The inspection took place during a period of warm weather, and staff were following Government guidance on supporting people to stay safe. This included ensuring people had additional hydration and were wearing suitable clothing. Staff were monitoring people to ensure they were keeping cool.

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. People told us staff worked well with other services, such as community nurses and GP’s, to ensure they received the care they needed. Social care professionals were positive about the way the service worked with them, with one social worker commenting, “The staff at Seymour House are hardworking, open and transparent, and are willing to engage with professionals when needed. I always finds that whenever I have a request, it is attended to.”

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 told us they were supported to use a range of health services, including the GP and community nurses. Staff escalated any changes to people’s health to the relevant healthcare professionals and made sure people’s health needs were reviewed if needed.

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. Staff maintained records of care they had provided, for example, how much food and fluid people had taken or their skin condition. Records demonstrated changes were shared with healthcare professionals where needed to ensure people received appropriate treatment.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People told us staff gained their consent before providing any care for them. We observed staff working in this way throughout the inspection. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and consent issues. Staff understood the need to follow the best interest decision making process if people were assessed to lack capacity to consent to a specific decision.