Care Outlook (New Larchwood)

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 did not always have a consistent and effective process for assessing people’s needs. Leaders told us of their pre-assessment process for people before they received a package of care from Care Outlook (New Larchwood). However, this was not always effective. For example, although people’s dietary requirements were documented, some care plans lacked detailed information about people’s likes and dislikes. Some care plans lacked goals such as building on independent living skills or working towards an event such as a holiday or work. The provider and leaders had been open to feedback and taken immediate actions to make service improvements. This included reviewing pre-assessment processes and paperwork to ensure a holistic and consistent approach. However, this will take time to embed.

Despite this, people were not at risk because staff knew people well. People had control over their lives and were fully involved in reviews of their care. Leaders and staff told us that people’s needs were assessed regularly to ensure they always received care tailored to their needs. Records evidenced people received appropriate support.

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 felt staff had the appropriate training to provide safe care. Staff demonstrated a good understanding in relation to people’s specific support needs. We received feedback from staff and managers which demonstrated that people were supported in line with their needs, including their nutrition and hydration needs.They knew people’s preferences, likes and dislikes well. Where people were at risk, staff worked with external professionals to ensure good outcomes. A staff member said, “We have previously had people that have had swallowing difficulties, and we have referred them to [specialists] and have followed their guidelines. Always with people’s wishes in mind, if they choose not to follow the guidelines, then it would be reported back to the [specialists].”

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. Staff worked effectively with partner agencies to ensure people’s needs were met. A staff member said, “If someone has skin or catheter problem we ring the district nurses. Everyone at the home is registered at the onsite GP surgery. It's a pretty good surgery to get appointments. If someone really needed to see a doctor, and they couldn't come downstairs, the GP would go see them in their flats.” Staff worked together positively to support people to follow the advice that was given and in continuing to monitor their wellbeing. A leader said, “We would always report to the GP or District Nurses if there is a concern. We would then follow their advice. We would also add a monitoring task so that staff are able to see instructions clearly.” Professionals told us that staff communicated with them well and alerted them when people’s needs had changed or needed review. One professional said, “The service are proactive in approaching services when support is required from external agencies. Any manual handling plans and guidance provided by me has been well disseminated amongst the care team.”

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. People had choice and control over their daily lives. They confirmed they were supported to see a GP or other healthcare professionals when needed. People’s healthcare needs were identified in their care and support plans.Staff monitored people’s health care needs and informed the appropriate people of any changes in health. Staff told us they would raise any concerns with management if people’s health changed. Records viewed evidenced this worked effectively.

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. People told us they were able to communicate with leaders and staff and that if any changes were made, they were fully involved in those decisions. Staff were competent in monitoring changes in people’s needs and escalating concerns when additional support was required. Professionals reported that staff worked effectively in partnership to monitor people’s health and medical conditions. They said staff were proactive in identifying and reporting concerns, ensuring people received timely professional input. Leaders and staff told us people’s outcomes were always monitored through reviews and feedback. During reviews, care needs were discussed to improve outcomes.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People told us staff asked them for consent before commencing care. Staff had received training for the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and understood their responsibilities under this legislation. Staff had a good knowledge of MCA and how to practically apply this in their everyday roles. They were aware of the importance of consent and supporting people to make decisions. A staff member said, “We have people with diabetes, and although we try to encourage healthy eating, ultimately, that person has the capacity to make their own decisions and it is their choice with what they choose to eat.” Care plans detailed people’s decision-making capability. Where needed, best interest decisions were evidenced. Where people were unable to sign their paperwork, verbal consent was documented.