Lee Valley Care Services Limited

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant people’s outcomes were 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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The provider had not always carried out robust assessment of people’s needs. Risk assessments and care plans for one person lacked robust information and detailed strategies to guide staff. For example, records indicated a risk of a self-harming behaviour, specially hitting themselves when distressed. However, the risk was not formally captured in a specific risk assessment or care plan. This meant staff lacked documented guidance on how to safely support the person and manage these behaviours when they became distressed or restless.

Notwithstanding the above, most staff have worked at the service for a long time and knew the people they cared for well and the actions to take to support them.

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.

Care and support followed recognised guidance. People were supported well at mealtimes; we observed a flexible approach to support their individual needs and preferences.The manager and staff demonstrated a strong understanding of the people they supported and maintained positive relationships with them. This enabled staff to provide person-centred care.

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 told us they worked well as a team. Comments included, “It’s a good team to be a part of and we get on well,” and “I’mhappy with the team we are all very supporting and work together.” There were processes to support effective team working, such as handovers, and team meetings. We saw evidence of staff working with external teams, such as occupational therapists, mental health teams, social workers and dietitians.

A health care professional told us, “The staff have worked collaboratively with me and other services to support an individual.”

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 future care needs.

We observed people had a choice of meals, which looked appetising. They were supported where needed to eat. A relative said, “[Family member] is happy there, eats well and goes to the gym every week.”

People were supported to take part in activities for their wellbeing. The activities coordinator told us, “The overall aim of the activity programme is to promote dignity, independence, wellbeing, social connection, learning, confidence, creativity, and enjoyment.”

Activities were delivered in a person-centred manner and are adapted to meet the changing needs of the people who lived there.

Staff explained how they supported people to have access to the GP, optician and dental services when required. Records we reviewed confirmed this.

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, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The provider did not have a robust approach to monitoring the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support and action was not always taken to continuously improve it. Where risks to people had been identified in relation to their mental health needs, the provider did not have a clear plan to consistently and effectively monitor the risks and outcomes related to people’s mental health and quality of life and to improve these.

Notwithstanding the above, there were monthly key working sessions where staff met to discuss care with people they were supporting as their key worker. This helped to identify if a person had reached their goals

The deputy manager told us they worked closely with external professionals such as the Community Mental Health Teams (CMHT), the GP, district nurses, occupational and physio therapists. A health care professional told us, “Staff treat people kindly and compassionately, they advocate for additional resources when these are needed.”

Updates to people’s needs were shared accordingly with staff via handovers and the electronic care planning system.

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

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). People were supported to make everyday decisions, and staff provided care at each person’s preferred pace and in their preferred way and supported people with decision‑making when required.

The provider worked in line with the Mental Capacity Act. Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had been completed in line with best practice. Where required people’s relatives or their legal representatives were involved in making decisions about their care.