Archived: Alderwood L.L.A. Limited - Rushden

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

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.

Managers and leaders reviewed and updated people’s care plans regularly. Additionally, full reviews were held alongside people and their relatives, and other professionals involved where necessary.

Where people couldn’t directly be involved in review meetings, or discussions, the provider used their observations and knowledge about people to gauge the persons feelings, and their experience of care.

Staff had good knowledge about people’s needs, and how best to support them with this. Staff told us they are informed of changes to people’s needs and given time to familiarise themselves with new or updated documentation.

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.

The service consistently delivers care and treatment, based on current best practice and national guidance. Staff were trained in evidence-based approaches such as positive behaviour support methods.

Care plans were detailed and regularly reviewed including input from people, relatives, relevant professionals and staff working closely with them on a day-to-day basis.

Health monitoring tools, such as bowel health management, and risk assessments were used effectively.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. Staff told us that they have a great team within the service, and they are happy so far with the new management team in place. One staff member told us, “We work well together, we support each other.”

We found evidence that leaders and staff work collaboratively with other professionals such as Speech and Language Therapists (SALT), to ensure they can support people to the best of their ability. One person told us, in relation to working with SALT “I went through details with them” and “She talked about stuff we could do in the future to help [person].”

Leaders chair regular staff team meetings. There is a good turnout at most team meetings, and they utilise these occasions to share information, develop staff and collaborate on problem solving.

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.

We found that the provider promoted healthier choices around nutrition, however, staff and leaders were aware of people’s right to choose and to not infringe on this.

The provider supported people to access health services, such as GPs, Dentists and Opticians, including attending for annual health checks.

No one at the service were currently eligible for any NHS screening programmes, however, the provider shared information about what these are and when people would be eligible.

The provider utilised health action plans, which are documents used to promote the health needs of people with learning disabilities and autism. The plans were detailed and thorough.

Where people had health needs, or concerns, such as constipation, the provider utilised bowel health plans and documentation to monitor these needs.

Relatives confirmed that people were supported to make healthier choices, for example, one relative told us, “[Person] gets a choice of balanced meals, they are encouraged to walk each day, trampoline and swim.”

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 kept clear records, which enabled effective monitoring of people’s day to day needs. Additionally, people had key workers. They would meet with their key worker once a month, to monitor their progress towards their desired goals. Goals were set with people, their relatives and professionals where appropriate, and included things such as going ice skating and socialising more with peers.

The provider utilised care records, to monitor and work towards improvement for people. For example, when someone was distressed and needed emotional support, staff would document information such as what led to the person stress and what worked to support them to feel better. Managers and leaders would review this information to gain insight into what was happening for people, and work to avoid recurrence, or reduce occurrences when people experienced distress.

The provider respected people’s rights around consent and upheld these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff and leaders had good knowledge about the Mental Capacity Act, and how to put this into practice.

Where people could make choices and consent, they were encouraged to do so. If people did not have the mental capacity to make certain choices, this was determined by a mental capacity assessment. These assessments were done in line with the 5 key principles of the act, however, there was room for improvement to ensure people had been given relevant information in a way they are likely to understand, and that this was documented.

People and their relatives were involved in best interest decision making processes where people didn’t have capacity, and where people could make choices and consent to aspects of their care, this was promoted and encouraged.