Real Life Options - Long Eaton Supported Living and Outreach

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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated 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.

The provider implemented systems to assess care and treatment for people which were effective. People were involved in the assessment of their needs; they identified their goals and how they preferred to be supported to achieve them.

The provider took into account the recommendations of professionals involved in the person’s care and treatment. For example, recommendations from SaLT to reduce the risk of choking. Detailed guidelines were developed for staff to follow to support people safely. The provider planned and facilitated regular reviews to ensure the most up to date information was discussed and captured. The opportunity to keep records up to date was identified and addressed. Staff understood people’s preferences and demonstrated respect in people’s homes.

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 provider used appropriate resources to ensure practice was up to date and in line with expected standards. People received clinical care and support in line with evidence based good practice standards for a wide range of needs. For example, swallowing, nutrition and hydration needs and moving and handling. Staff received specific training and followed support guidelines to manage people’s risks associated with their diagnosed chronic conditions, for example, diabetes and epilepsy.

Staff were competent to provide the care and treatment people required and were able to access additional training and support as necessary. Staff knew people well and understood what was important and mattered to each individual.

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 as required.

The management team worked with relevant local professionals to develop effective working relationships, for example, with GPs, district nurse teams, speech and language therapists and social workers. Managers attended meetings to share updates and discuss any queries. This was seen as positive from the professionals involved. One professional told us, “There has been a lot of work undertaken by the new management team to improve the service. I attend a monthly meeting with [manager] where we can discuss any issues or concerns. The team are always good at accepting feedback and implementing recommendations.”

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.
Care records included guidance for staff to support people to reduce the risk of deterioration of their known health needs. People’s complex needs were identified, risk-assessed, and managed collaboratively. Where required, people’s health care needs were led by the local district nurse team, staff were trained and assessed as competent to carry out delegated health care tasks.
During the assessment it was identified guidance could be more detailed in some instances, for example, detailing individual’s presentations during seizure activity or changes in diabetic status. The provider was able to confirm conditions were very well managed with limited information to provide further detail for individuals. Assurance was given of ongoing monitoring with the opportunity to record additional information should it be available. Staff were trained to observe and report changes in people’s health conditions and felt confident to do so.
 

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 provider systems supported people’s involvement in all aspects of their care planning, including regular reviews. Documentation evidenced people’s personal outcomes were recorded. Staff knew people well and understood how to support them to achieve these. Opportunities to improve people’s care were identified and action taken to achieve these. For example, the provider engaged a specialist team to identify and understand cycles of behaviour and then develop plans to keep the person, staff and others safe. This resulted in an increase in positive experiences for the person.

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

People were supported to consent to their care, support and treatment where they had capacity to do so, and the principles of the Mental Capacity Action 2005 (MCA) were followed when people lacked capacity to make decisions about their care. Appropriate assessments and best interest decision records were completed and saved where necessary.

People were supported by staff who understood how to promote independence and support people to make everyday choices. Staff were skilled in using communication methods appropriate to each person to facilitate decision making. For example, understanding people’s individual vocalisations and gestures; using pictures and symbols to support people to demonstrate their choices and developing visual schedule planners with people to help them process their choices and activities.