Outlook Care - Veronica Close

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 71 (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.

The registered manager told us they carried out an assessment of people’s needs prior to the provision of care and records confirmed this. The assessment involved the person and their relatives where appropriate, so it captured what was important to them. A person told us, “One of the senior support workers came to our home to pick up my [relative] when they moved to the service.” Another relative told us, “The provider called and I attended care review meeting. The communication is good”

Care plans were drawn up with the involvement of people and their relatives where appropriate. We found that each person had an individualised care plan tailored to their specific needs and preferences. The care plans contained person-centred information outlining the areas in which people required support and how they wished their care to be delivered. This provided staff with sufficient guidance to meet people’s needs and preferences effectively.

However, we noted that the new electronic care plans needed to be reviewed since their introduction as the software had some glitches and did not reflect the correct entries that staff had entered on paper records. The provider had already identified these issues and was in contact with the software provider to resolve them. This would ensure the information remained accurate and up to date.

Potential risks about people’s safety were assessed to ensure they were supported to remain as safe as possible. Risk assessments gave staff clear guidance on how best to support people in different situations, for example, the management of falls or when people going out in the community. This helped to ensure care and support was delivered in a safe way.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and support 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.

Staff had undertaken training to understand about caring for people with a learning disability, communication, positive behaviour support. A staff told us, “I attended positive behaviour support training which was very helpful for role.” The registered manager told us that they shared best practice updates with staff following the meetings with local authorities, and other healthcare professionals.

Policies were in line with national good practice and care was given in a person-centred way, in line with the person’s wishes, and people were involved in their needs assessment. Care plans included information about what mattered to them, including their likes and preferences.

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.

Effective staff communications systems were in place. Staff received detailed handover after each shift. Monthly staff meetings were organised, and discussion focused on health and safety, safeguarding, infection prevention control, and people’s health and well-being.

The provider continued to encourage people and their relatives to discuss any concerns. A healthcare professional said, “The provider seems to be quite proactive and communicative about residents. This allows us to guide them with strategies or signpost them to professionals and services that could support clients”.

The staff we spoke with, demonstrated a good awareness of people’s health and medical needs and, how they would respond to them, if people were to become unwell. The staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan and deliver people’s care and support.

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 provider supported people with their physical and emotional health. They developed health and nutrition plans, and hospital passports. Staff supported people with their medicines and monitored long‑term conditions, with adjustments made when people’s needs changed. Staff recognised changes in people’s presentation, distress or wellbeing and responded by providing reassurance, adapting support and escalating concerns where required. A healthcare professional said, “Staff seem to be very open to learning about strategies on how to better support people with their eating and drinking needs”. A healthcare professional said, “Staff and the registered manager, all joined the home appointments for a full team approach, for the initial and on-going appointments. The person was supported to join. Staff spoke fondly of the person, emphasising strengths and progress.”

Staff were aware of people’s health diagnosis, dietary requirements, lifestyle, communication, and mobility needs.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and support to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

During our site visit, we found people’s outcomes were not monitored effectively. For example, the provider did not keep a record of people’s emotional needs. The provider did not record an accurate description of a person’s expressed distress or agitation as a result of an unmet need. This meant a person as well as others around them could be at risk of harm. The provider did not analyse information such as triggers, themes and trends to improve care and outcomes. Healthcare professionals could not ensure the right support for this people because the information was not available to them. We discussed this with the registered manager who agreed to make the required improvements.

Relatives confirmed they were contacted and updated about people’s health. A relative said, “My relative had an GP appointment and carers called me to update me about what happened at the appointment”.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People and relatives, we spoke with told us they were involved in planning their care and support and were able to share their preferences for how they wished to receive care. The provider recorded consent within care plans and support documentation. The registered manager completed mental capacity act assessments and best‑interest decisions where people lacked capacity. This ensured care and treatment were delivered lawfully and respectfully, with people’s choices recognised. Relatives we spoke with confirmed with us they were involved in making a decision in the person’s best interests.

We spoke with staff and they demonstrated a good understanding about the importance of people’s consent. A staff member said, “We always seek people’s approval before we do anything for them.” Another staff member said, “I will always ask people if they would like shower, and medicines. I will also read their body language. It is important to ask people for their permission.”