West Devon & District Care & Support Limited

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.

Feedback from people using the service and relatives regarding the service and staff was positive.

The registered manager carried out thorough detailed, person-centred assessments before people began receiving care, including meeting individuals, speaking with relatives, and reviewing the home environment. These plans, along with associated risk assessments, were reviewed regularly. People said, “We have a care plan and that’s all on the app and I do have involvement if anything needs changing. We reviewed it a couple of days ago.”

Care plans covered all relevant areas of support, such as skin integrity, medicines, mobility and moving and handling, and included information about other professionals involved in each person’s ongoing care.

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 confirmed their care and support was delivered in the way they wanted by well trained staff. Comments included, “I have confidence in the carers being well trained and knowing what they are doing.”

People’s specific nutrition and hydration needs were met in line with current guidance.

Staff confirmed they had received accredited training to ensure they could provide people with individualised care and support in line with evidence-based good practice.

The provider’s systems ensured staff were up to date with national legislation, evidence-based good practice and required standards.

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 systems were used for information sharing and communication across the staff team, including team meetings and internal messages.

There was clear evidence of collaborative multidisciplinary team (MDT) working. Records showed the registered manager engaged effectively with external professionals such as GPs, community nurses, and occupational therapists, to ensure people received coordinated and appropriate support.

Guidance from community nurses was followed, and staff implemented recommended strategies to promote people’s safety, independence, and wellbeing. This collaborative approach helped ensure care planning remained responsive to people’s changing needs and reflected best practice.

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.

Records and feedback from people evidenced the provider acted promptly to ensure referrals were made when people needed extra support from health and social care services. When advice and guidance was provided, this was followed by staff.

People were actively supported to manage their health and wellbeing, including accessing input from a range of multi-disciplinary professionals. The service reported strong working relationships with local health and social care professionals, they collaborated effectively to meet the health needs of the people they supported.

Care records documented engagement with health care professionals and recommendations were incorporated into care plans and followed by staff. People and their relatives were happy with the support given in this area.

Reviews took place to ensure people’s current and changing needs were met.

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.

Care plans and risk assessments evidenced people’s care and support needs were regularly monitored. Effective processes ensured any updates in people’s care needs were shared with staff and relatives. Regular governance, audits, and observation of practice took place to ensure care remained at an acceptable standard.

Care staff told us they would always raise any emerging issues about changes to people’s care and support needs with the registered manager. They also considered if current care was effective and if improvement was needed. This was achieved through review processes and by communicating with people and their families.

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

People were empowered to make their own decisions about their care and support.

The registered manager and staff understood how to work collaboratively with people and gain their consent to care. Records evidenced people and their relatives were supported to state their preferences for care and support. At the commencement of care, documentation was in place to formalise consent to care, and consideration was given to people’s ability to give informed consent as set out in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

Staff demonstrated best practice when assessing mental capacity, supporting decision-making and making best interest decisions. Staff understood how to seek consent and promoted choice for day-to-day decisions.

Where people could not consent, decisions were made in their best interests in line with the principles of the MCA. For people that the service assessed as lacking mental capacity for certain decisions, staff clearly recorded mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions.