White Acres

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 changed to 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.

People had personalised care plans which addressed their individual needs. Care plans were generally detailed and provided clear guidance for staff on how to meet people's needs. For example, 1 person's epilepsy care plan contained comprehensive information to support staff in recognising and responding appropriately to their condition.

When a person moved into the service, a preadmission assessment was completed to allow the provider to fully understand the person’s care needs and health conditions. One person had recently moved in, and had found the transition positive. Their relatives also expressed their satisfaction, with them stating, “We are happy with everything.”

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

Records relating to people’s food and fluid intake were not consistently clear or complete. This included records for people who required modified diets and people who required support to drink enough. This meant we could not be assured staff had always followed people’s eating and drinking guidance or that people had enough to eat or drink.

Whilst the provider had completed nationally recognised clinical tools, such as Waterlow (a tool used to assess how likely a person is to develop a pressure wound) we found these had not always been completed in conjunction with the rest of the person’s care records. For example, records for 1 person stated in their care plan they were continent, however, the Waterlow tool recorded they were incontinent. This conflicting information meant the provider could not be assured the outcome of the Waterlow tool was reflective of the person’s needs, or that staff had accurate guidance to follow to support the person in the prevention of pressure wounds.

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.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

There were examples of staff recognising when people were becoming unwell and seeking prompt advice from a GP. However, arrangements for coordinating healthcare appointments were not effective, and several hospital follow-up appointments had been missed. This placed people at risk of delays in receiving necessary assessment, treatment or ongoing monitoring.

We also identified hospital passports were not in place. These documents provide important information to hospital staff about a person’s health, communication and support needs. Communication passports we reviewed were also out of date.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Monitoring records relating to food, fluids, medicines, one-to-one support and behaviours were incomplete or were not checked effectively. This meant the provider had not consistently used monitoring information to assess whether people’s support was working or whether their outcomes were improving, and placed people at risk of emerging concerns being missed.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

The provider had not completed the required mental capacity assessments for 1 person within the specified timeframe and could not demonstrate all relevant care decisions had been considered. This placed the person at risk of not receiving appropriate support to make decisions and of decisions being made on their behalf without the correct process being followed.