Gleberry Support Hinckley

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 67 (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 and their relatives told us they were involved in assessing their needs and developing their care plans, which were regularly reviewed. One relative told us, “They send us the care plan and check it’s appropriate.” Another relative said, “We have annual reviews but also check in reviews if there are any changes.” Staff told us care plans were updated when people’s needs changed and relevant information was shared with staff. The registered manager told us reviews were completed via telephone or face to face to help ensure people’s care continued to reflect their needs and preferences.

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

Some improvements were needed to ensure care and support were consistently delivered in line with recognised guidance and best practice. Some people had been assessed by the Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) service in relation to eating, drinking and swallowing needs. However, copies of these assessments and recommendations were not always available to the provider to guide staff practice.

Despite this, relatives told us the recommendations were being followed. Families prepared food and drinks in line with people’s assessed needs, which staff then supported people to eat and drink. One relative told us staff ,“Encourage them to chew and swallow and ensure they are sitting upright.”

Recognised nutritional screening tools, such as the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), which is used to identify adults who may be at risk of malnutrition, were not always in place.

Food and fluid monitoring records were in place for people who required them. Records described people’s food intake but did not always specify the quantities of food or fluids consumed. The registered manager acknowledged improvements were needed in recording and assured us this would be reviewed.

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.

The registered manager told us they had positive working relationships with health and social care professionals. Where concerns or changes in people’s needs were identified, advice and support were sought from relevant professionals, including GPs. Records showed referrals had been made when required.

Staff told us they worked well together and shared relevant information to support people’s care. Staff meetings were held regularly, providing opportunities for staff to share information and discuss people’s care and support.

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.

Relatives told us staff identified changes in people’s health and shared concerns with them. One relative described how staff had identified signs of a urinary tract infection and changes to the person’s skin, which enabled them to seek further healthcare support. They told us, “They are pretty good and tell us if there are any issues.” Another relative said staff were “Always sharing any updates” about the person’s health.

Staff demonstrated an awareness of signs which could indicate changes in a person’s health. One staff member described recognising changes associated with a possible urinary tract infection and said they would contact the GP where required to advocate for the person.

The registered manager told us people could also be supported to access healthcare appointments, including the GP, dentist and optician, where this formed part of their assessed support. They said care calls could be extended where required to support people with activities such as shopping and attending appointments.

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.

One relative told us a person had experienced concerns with their skin and was supported by district nurses. They told us staff understood the person’s needs, supported them with repositioning and “Managed it well”, and confirmed the person’s skin had healed.

Staff also monitored one person’s blood pressure following a request from their relative and GP. Records we sampled, including photographs of the readings, showed this had been completed as requested to support ongoing monitoring of the person’s health.

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 could not always demonstrate consent to care and treatment was managed in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Where people were believed to lack capacity to make specific decisions, relevant mental capacity assessments and best interest decision records were not always in place.

For one person, a local authority assessment identified they lacked capacity to make some decisions; however, this was not reflected in the provider’s assessments or care plans. In another case, a consent form had been signed by a family member, but records did not demonstrate whether they had the legal authority to consent on the person’s behalf. This meant there was a risk people may not always be appropriately supported to make decisions, or that decisions made on their behalf were not clearly recorded.

Despite this, relatives gave positive feedback about how people were supported. One relative told us staff were “Always acting in their best interest and the least restrictive.”

Staff told us they adapted their communication to people’s individual understanding and how they were feeling at the time. The registered manager told us they were committed to supporting people in the least restrictive way and assured us they would review how people’s capacity was assessed and decisions made on their behalf were recorded.