Ings Grove House

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 remained requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 58 (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.

Systems were in place to make sure the process of assessing people’s needs prior to them moving to the service was completed with the input of the multi-disciplinary team. People’s needs were assessed again on admission and care and treatment plans put in place which were kept under review to make sure they reflected peoples changing needs as their rehabilitation progressed.

The provider did not always maintain an overview to make sure planned care and treatment was delivered in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Issues with oversite of care charts identified at the last assessment had not improved sufficiently to identify potential issues such as people consistently not meeting their daily fluid intake targets. During the assessment, the registered manager addressed this by providing staff with a daily overview of care charts which flagged any areas needing action.

Recognised clinical tools were used to assess risks to people’s health and wellbeing. Treatments such as physiotherapy and wound care were provided by the community healthcare team based within the service.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services.

Measures to strengthen partnership working between the service and the community healthcare team based within the service were being worked on. Whilst there had been some improvements, there was still some blurring of responsibilities which had affected people’s care. For example, a physical check of a person returning to hospital had not been completed because staff incorrectly thought this was the responsibility of the community healthcare team. This meant that an issue which could have affected the person’s health had not been identified.

The provider supported people to maximise their independence. Staff supported people to reduce their future needs for care and support. However, people’s health was at risk of being affected due to issues relating to managing their medicines.

People did not always receive the medicines they needed to maintain their health in line with prescriber’s instructions. People benefited from a joint approach from staff and the community healthcare team to maximise their independence. As part of the rehabilitation programme, staff worked with people to prepare them for having reduced access to support when they returned home.

The provider did not always follow good practice to ensure that outcomes from care and treatment were positive and consistent, or that they met clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Systems were not always followed to monitor that people’s treatment regimes were effective. For example, when medicines had been administered to address pain, there was no recorded follow up to establish if the medicine had been effective.

Some improvements in partnership working between the service and community healthcare team meant people usually benefitted from the joint approach of both teams but this was not always the case. People felt their rehabilitation was closely monitored and any changes needed to make sure they received the right support were made.

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

All the people staying at the service at the time of our assessment had capacity to make decisions about their care and treatment, Consent to care was explained and sought in a welcome pamphlet given to people at the start of their stay.