Lindsay 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

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 79 (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.

Pre-admission processes were thorough; risk assessments and care documentation were formulated and reviewed with people’s involvement.

The provider ensured that people’s needs were assessed holistically including key aspects of their care, and things that were important to them.

Staff and leaders had good knowledge about people’s needs, wishes and preferences and the provider was quick to adapt care and treatment to people’s changing needs.

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.

Staff and leaders had good knowledge around relevant legislation and best practice guidance. They delivered care in line with people’s wishes and preferences, as well as their clinical and social needs.

Where needed, the provider referred people to external agencies and professionals. Their assessment and guidance were embedded promptly into people’s care.

The provider always worked well across teams and services to support people. They shared thorough assessments of people’s needs when they moved between different services, so people only needed to tell their story once.

We found there was a focus on joined up working with external agencies and professionals, to ensure better outcomes for people using the service. The provider utilised not only statutory services, but sourced services for people outside what was provided in the local area, for example, non-statutory advocacy.

Leaders operated with a democratic approach, meaning staff were involved in the wider aspects of the service and its direction, alongside the input of people using the service. Communication between staff and leaders was effective, and staff told us there was a supportive and positive culture within the team.

External professionals feedback reflected that communication, and multi-agency working was exemplary. One professional told us, “In my personal experience, the quality of care, the commitment of staff, the teamwork and the way the service is managed are all excellent.”

One staff member told is, “There is a strong sense of teamwork. Staff communicate well with each other, support one another and appear to genuinely care about achieving the best outcomes for [people].”

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.

The provider promoted healthy choices but recognised the importance of people exercising their right to choose.

The provider worked with people to achieve their goals and make independent choices whilst maintaining a reasonable level of health. For example, around sexual safety, the provider supported people to understand how to have relationships of this nature, whilst maintaining their health.

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 used care plan documentation that was goal focused. These were regularly reviewed with people, to track their progress and discuss any additional goals they wanted to be supported with. This was predominantly done by staff, but leaders had oversight of these as well.

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

Most people using the service were able to consent. Where needed, the provider gave additional support to people to understand the pros and cons of decisions and aspects of their care and treatment.

Where people were unable to consent to care and treatment, the provider applied the Mental Capacity Act (MCA, 2005). Staff and leaders had good knowledge on how to apply this legislation and followed the relevant code of practice. There was some room for improvement to ensure all staff were completing Mental Capacity Assessments to a high standard, however, there application of the MCA (2005) was still in line with the legislation.