SummerView

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 were placed at the centre of this assessment along with their relatives, advocates and other health professionals involved in their care. Care was planned in a person-centred way focusing on their wants, needs and future and goals, whilst supporting them to manage risks safely. People’s communication needs were explored and understood to enable staff to engage effectively with people. Assessments and care plans were regularly reviewed so that they remained up to date and person centred.

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’s nutrition and hydration needs were fully assessed and where needed referrals were made to the appropriate health professionals such as speech and language therapist (SALT) or GP. Where needed people were supported with specialist diets and had their weight and fluid intake recorded when indicated as part of a treatment program. People were involved in planning meals at the service with a weekly menu planning meeting to decide on meals for that week. Staff told us people had choice over their food and when they chose to eat. A relative told us, “The food is good, [person name] loves it.” The kitchen was open for people to have access to drinks and snacks when they needed them. People were supported to help with making meals and clearing up after these. Staff told us how 2 people enjoyed making cakes and staff supported them to do this.

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. When transitioning between services the provider worked with people and other healthcare professionals to ensure this happened seamlessly and ensured information was shared effectively. Hospital passports were kept up to date containing all the relevant information needed covering health conditions, current care needs and ways to communicate.

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. The registered manager liaised with the local GP service weekly for any reviews needed or monitoring of people’s healthcare needs. Routine screening was arranged with dentists, opticians and chiropody appointments made for footcare. Where specialist appointments were needed with hospital specialist such as audiology, psychiatrists and learning disability support these were made and followed up. A relative told us, “Staff let us know if there are any appointments. Sometimes we take [person name] or we meet with staff at appointments.” Where needed medication reviews and health checks were completed by the local GP service.

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’s skills, life experience and strengths were discussed with them and those involved in their care, to understand how people’s short, mid and long-term life choices, goals, ambitions and outcomes can be planned and achieved. These were regularly reviewed by their key worker with them to make sure they were still relevant. Staff regularly had meetings with people to ask their opinions on care and gain their feedback on the service and if anything could be improved.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People’s care plans detailed their ability to consent to treatment and make decisions as independently as possible. Where appropriate relatives, advocates and other health professionals were involved in helping people make decisions.
The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

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.
In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We saw that DoLS application had been made appropriately.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff understood the need to gain consent from people to support them with their care needs and in making decisions.

We found staff practice reflected the principles of the MCA. People were encouraged to make their own decisions, while still minimising risk. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act.

Where people had a DoLS in place any conditions in place were adhered to and monitored by the registered manager. Where people needed independent support with making decisions an advocate was appointed to act on their behalf.