4 Hermitage Lane

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.

People’s needs were thoroughly assessed prior to them moving to the service and transition plans were put in place to support people to move to the home safely. At the time of the assessment, there was a person who was planning to move to the service in coming months. Staff told us they had been made aware of this in a team meeting where they discussed this. Staff also told us how staff had been visiting the person in their current placement to learn about the person, and that the person has started coming for dinners at the service.

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.

Leaders used recognised tools to assess people’s needs, such as the ‘Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool’ [MUST]. People’s care was regularly reviewed to ensure it remained up to date. People and their relatives were involved in changes to people’s care plans to ensure it remained in line with their needs and preferences. One relative told us, “They send updates and ask if we are in agreement with any changes.”

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.

Staff told us they worked well as a team. Comments included, “It’s a really nice home to work in, everyone gets on really well” and “We have a really nice and good team”. There were processes to support effective team working, such as handovers, and team meetings. We saw evidence of staff working with external teams, such as health professionals and advocacy services.

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.

People had detailed information in their care plans about their health needs, including information about how people’s health needs affected them. This enabled staff to support people more effectively. People received regular vaccinations where appropriate and had information about health screening checks within their care plans. People’s dietary needs were met. For example, 1 person was gluten free, so their menu only contained gluten free 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.

Where people’s care needs required monitoring, this was recorded within people’s care plans. For example, 1 person was at risk of constipation and had a bowel monitoring chart. This meant staff would know when to administer laxative medication. Another person’s weight required monitoring which was being completed regularly.

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

Staff asked for consent before supporting people. Where people lacked capacity, leaders had ensured they followed the Mental Capacity Act and completed best interest decisions. This meant people’s rights were upheld.

Staff had completed training in the Mental Capacity Act.