Ashglade

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 assessments looked at people’s medical conditions, physical and mental health, mobility, nutrition, choices, people’s home environment, daily activities, and personal care needs. Where appropriate, people and relatives were involved in this assessment. For example, one person told us, “They [staff] talk to my family.” about care plans. This information was used as a basis for developing personalised care plans, to meet each person’s needs.
 

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. People who lacked the mental capacity to make informed decisions or give consent, for some people the provider did not act in accordance with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and associated code of practice before delivering a regulated activity to them. For example, 2 people had appropriate legal authorisations to deprive of their liberty. However, the outcome of their mental capacity assessment in relation to day-to-day care, personal care, mealtimes, and continence care stated they had capacity to consent. We brought this to the attention of the registered manager, who explained that people had variable capacity and that an external professional assessed them as lacking capacity, which resulted in legal authorisation to deprive their liberty. The registered manager further said, they are aware of the shortcomings of their current online system tools for assessing people’s mental capacity and explained us how they planned to make improvements.

People told us they were consented before staff supported them. For example, when we asked how staff sought consent before delivering care and support. One person told us, “They [staff] will talk to me and tell me.” Another person said, “They [staff] talk to you about it.” Staff knew about people's capacity to make decisions through verbal or nonverbal means. Staff training records showed they had received MCA training.