Linwood

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 Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

When assessing someone’s needs prior to moving into the service, staff undertook an assessment and then following this move, completed a 48-hour audit form. This helped ensure all the important information about a person was recorded quickly, seen and signed off by the registered manager and shared with staff.

A person’s care plan was developed from the initial assessment information over time and adjusted and reviewed as necessary involving health professionals, the person and family. A relative told us, “They always call us if they need us to give any information about mum.”

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.

Safety huddle meetings were held at the service which included senior management, community matrons, the district nursing team, local authority and other professionals. The team discussed people who required additional input or those who staff were concerned about. The registered manager told us, “The community team are great, because if someone is due to be discharged from hospital back to Linwood, they will go and check they are suitable to return.” This demonstrated multidisciplinary working, helped to identify medication or safeguarding concerns and assisted in an understanding of any clinical changes to the person and equipment or change in care which may be needed.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people.

The registered manager told us how they worked closely with healthcare professionals such as the district nurses, speech and language therapy team and the mental health team. However, they said, “The GP used to come in weekly but they stopped this. Now people have to go to the surgery for appointments. Although this maintains people’s independence somewhat it’s not good if they need to see a doctor quickly.” But they went on to say, “Instead we use the urgent community response team. They will come in and help us. They can escalate situations and assist us with engaging with the appropriate team.”

We observed staff working well together during our visit. Staff supported each other with the tasks required and liaised together when people needed support. Communication between staff was good and it was clear that teamwork was an embedded practice within the service. A staff member said, “We are very good at working as a team.”

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.

A relative told us, “When my [family member] experienced weight loss due to poor oral intake, the team’s response was robust. They implemented weekly weight monitoring, introduced nutritional supplements, and offered a variety of fortified food choices. Crucially, staff provided one-to-one encouragement at mealtimes. I am pleased to report her weight has returned to her normal range.”

People were supported to achieve their own goals. This included 1 person who wished to lose weight. Staff encouraged the person to walk more and eat more healthily and as a result they lost the weight they wished to.

People were provided with suitable nutrition and hydration. Some people were on modified diets and we observed them receiving meals made to an appropriate consistency. We saw throughout the visit that people had juice or hot drinks available to them demonstrating staff encouraged people to drink. A relative told us, “Staff prompt him to drink water.” People told us the food was good and there was a choice of menu options.

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.

The registered manager gave us examples of where people’s lives had improved since moving into Linwood. This included 1 person who was moved to a downstairs room within the service giving them more freedom to access the garden. This had had a positive impact on this person’s mental wellbeing and in turn they became more engaged with staff and activities. Another person was given the support to make their own choice as to whether they undertook treatment for a health condition, meaning they were in charge of their own healthcare decisions. A further person had a partner who did not live at Linwood and this person was supported to see them outside of the service and for the two of them to enjoy meals together within the home.

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

Staff had undertaken training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and understood the need to obtain a person’s consent prior to providing care. A staff member told us, “Never assume the resident doesn’t have capacity. They have the right to make a bad decision. We need to treat people like we would like to be treated.” We observed people being given choices by staff.

Capacity assessments and best interests decisions were in place for people where restrictive practices were being used. This included people living in the service which had a locked door and where people had sensor mats in their rooms.