Tikvah Woodpeckers

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. Person-centred risk assessments were completed. Care plans included guidance for staff to follow when people showed signs of distress. Assessments considered a wide range of needs, including personal care, skin integrity, nutrition, hydration and mobility. Care plans reflected people’s current needs and how they preferred to be supported. Care plans were regularly reviewed and updated to ensure they remained accurate and care continued to meet 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’s care records included guidance for staff to support them. The service worked in partnership with external healthcare professionals, including GPs, nurses, and healthcare specialists, to ensure people received appropriate and timely support. The registered manager told us they attended forums with the local authority and worked with professionals to support the delivery of care. For example, people were supported with positive behaviour support plans. These described strategies to reduce people’s anxiety, for example, ensuring support is provided by familiar staff and giving verbal reassurances when people became anxious. Records detailed guidance for staff to prevent distress before it occurred to help people feel safe and understood.

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. Staff worked effectively together as a team to deliver coordinated and consistent care and there was a collaborative approach to meeting people’s needs.
There were clear communication systems in place, including shift handovers, care records, and regular staff meetings, which ensured important information about people’s needs and any changes in their condition were shared appropriately. The registered manager and team members supported each other and worked cohesively to ensure care was delivered in a timely and responsive way. Staff worked in partnership with a range of external professionals, including GPs, district nurses, speech and language therapists and other healthcare specialists, to support people’s health and wellbeing. Staff told us they worked collaboratively with health and social care professionals and internal experienced colleagues when evaluating people’s care.
 

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 were provided with a healthy and varied diet with choices for mealtimes. For example, people could visit the on-site café for their meals. The lunchtime experience was relaxed, and we observed staff providing encouragement and support in a person-centred way.

People were supported to maintain and improve their health and well-being. For example, the registered manager and their team noticed a decline in a person health’s and they supported the person with hospital visits and contacted the GP for advice. Relatives told us staff were aware of people’s healthcare needs. We were told, “Yes, without a doubt. [Person] has been unwell and they have approached that with care and consideration”, and “[Person] had a skin issue previously, which was well managed and is no longer an issue.”
 

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. Systems were in place to support regular reviews of care plans and risk assessments to ensure they remained accurate and reflective of people’s current needs. Staff recorded and reported changes in people’s health and well-being, enabling timely action to be taken where concerns were identified, for example, during shift handovers. Outcomes were monitored through a range of methods, including daily records and when staff supported people. Relatives told us people’s health was monitored and referred to health care services appropriately. We were told, “I am aware that [person] has regular dental appointments and sees a GP when needed.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. We observed people moving freely around their homes and choosing where they wanted to spend their time, which was respected by staff.
Staff had been trained about the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and understood the importance of respecting people’s wishes. There were systems in place to ensure those making decisions about the care and support people received had the legal authority to do so. For example, Deprivation of Liberty (DoLS) authorisations and applications were in place for people who required this level of support to keep them safe and meet their needs. The registered manager completed decision specific mental capacity assessments and best interest’s decisions when required.
The registered manager told us they involved people in planning, for example, menu planning and consent was always asked for when administering medicines and delivering personal care. Relatives told us people were asked for consent. For example, staff, “Always explain what they would like [person] to do before making request of [person], always polite” and “I have seen them explaining what they wish [person] to do and don’t just assume [person] will take part.”