Regency Park

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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 ensured people’s care and treatment were effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs with them.
People’s needs were thoroughly assessed prior to moving into Regency Park to ensure the service could meet those needs. Care plans were person-centred, and risks were clearly documented. One relative shared, “There’s a very comprehensive plan when it comes to looking after [person].”
However, care plans were not always updated in a timely manner to reflect changes in people’s needs and circumstances.

Information was provided in accessible formats to support people with communication needs to be involved in planning their care and expressing their views. PECS (Picture Exchange Communication System) cards were used to support decision-making, enabling people to make choices about the care and support they received.
 

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.

People’s care plans included person centred information in relation to nutrition and hydration needs. For some people alternative methods of communication were used to enable them to make choices at mealtimes, this included picture cards. People were supported weekly to plan their mealtimes and participated in shopping.
 

Evidence demonstrated that the provider worked effectively across teams and services to support people. Multi-agency meetings, joint working practices, care plans and regular discussions with staff enabled information about people's needs to be shared effectively, reducing the need for people to repeat their experiences when accessing support from different services.

Communication with external health and social care professionals was consistently recorded. However, some information was not always readily accessible and would benefit from being stored in a centralised location to support oversight and ease of access. This included guidance from external health professionals.

Internal communication was effective. Staff told us they received a handover before every shift, which ensured key information was shared appropriately. Records also evidenced regular team meetings, providing opportunities for staff to discuss people's needs, share updates and maintain a consistent approach to care and support. A staff member we spoke with stated, “Team meetings are quite good they are informative and interactive.”
Staff spoke positively about teamwork within the service. Comments included, "I really enjoy working here; we all work well together" and "Staff morale is good."
 

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. A professional shared with us the service was reactive to people health needs and sought appropriate medication attention promptly. People living at the service were supported to attend medical appointments.

The service had systems in place to monitor changes in people's health and wellbeing. Staff used clinical monitoring tools, behaviour support plans and individual risk assessments to identify emerging concerns and changes in need. This helped ensure people received timely interventions and appropriate adjustments to their support when required.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's needs and were able to explain how support had been adapted in response to changes over time. Records showed these approaches had contributed to positive outcomes for people, including, improved wellbeing and an enhanced quality of life.
People had achievable goals that promoted independence and life skills. For example, one person had learned to make toast independently, while another was developing the skills needed to make their bed. Staff used a consistent approach when supporting people to achieve their goals, which helped people build confidence, learn new skills, and increase their independence.
Relatives spoke positively about the support provided. One relative told us, "They're trying to make him more independent; life skills, social skills and so on. I believe since school it's called a Strive programme."
 

The provider did not always ensure records relating to consent and decision-making were sufficiently detailed. Mental capacity assessments had been completed for all people living at the service and, where people were assessed as lacking capacity, best interest decisions had been made.

However, records were not always sufficiently detailed or specific to the decision being considered. For example, one person's best interest decision related to consent to care and treatment; however, the outcome focused on restrictions in place for the person. There was no evidence that a separate mental capacity assessment and best interest decision had been completed in relation to these restrictions.

Applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) had been submitted when required. The service maintained a tracker to monitor the status of applications and ensure renewals were requested when necessary.