Sheepwalk House

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 75 (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’s assessments considered their health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs, to ensure they received care and support that enabled them to achieve the best possible outcomes. Staff understood people’s current needs. People’s care plans and risk assessments were detailed and included individual outcomes. Staff added helpful details to the daily notes including pictures when people had been out on activities and descriptive text about meals and things that had happened. A staff member said, “They’re [care plans] brilliant, it’s all on there and everything you would need to know.”

We asked people’s close relatives if they had the opportunity to be involved in planning their family members care and support and attend their reviews.Relatives told us they were involved in formulating people’s care plans and were kept informed of any changes. A relative said, “We have quite a good rapport, we are very involved with their care, and we see [name] regularly and get phone calls.”

This meant people’s care was tailored to their individual needs, promoting better outcomes and wellbeing.

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 nutrition and hydrations needs were met. We saw that people’s food and fluid intake was recorded where needed and monitored. People were given choices each day of what they would like to eat for their meals. One relative said, “It’s good food, they do Christmas dinner and if there is a birthday, they have a party or go out. The standard of food is good. When [name] first went in, they would only eat certain foods colours, bacon, beans, but they extended their diet since they have been there, which is good.” Another said, “Yes, they have a lot of pictures [of food], there is a file they can choose things there. Staff cooking know what service users like.”

One person liked to be involved in cooking their dinner, but this would not be a healthy, balanced meal. Staff would assist them to make this food as a snack each day and would then make them a meal afterwards. This allowed the person to have a sense of independence and routine whilst still having support to have a healthy life by having support with their diet.

Staff were able to work with people to develop effective and person-centred ways of supporting them guided by up-to-date knowledge and standards, improving health outcomes and safety.

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 well with external professionals to ensure transitions were well coordinated and planned in line with people preferences. The management team worked closely with health and social care professionals to ensure people’s needs were met. Staff felt there was good teamwork within the home. A staff member said “I think we all work well as a team, we are very good at providing the best we can regardless of anything people have got going off in their personal lives, we do the best we can with what we’ve got. We are very welcoming for everyone who comes in contact. We are all very much welcome.”

This meant people received coordinated care from teams who communicated well and worked together effectively.

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 autonomy and choice about where they spent their time and were able to move freely around the service including the back garden. The garden was well maintained with various items people could use for their entertainment and fitness. This included a trampoline which had been put dug into the ground by staff. This was assessed at the time as being the safest option to reduce the risk of injury whilst being used and meant people could choose to use it if they wished.

Staff recognised the link between mental wellbeing and people being empowered to achieve goals and engage in activities of their choice. People had been supported to identify goals and develop skills, information about what worked well and what did not work was shared between the staff team to help develop consistent approaches and improve outcomes. Detailed daily records were kept which included photographs to document how people spent their days and what activities people were taking part in. These were available to be accessed by family members and meant there was a transparent system for families to monitor care and support being provided.

This meant people were encouraged and supported to improve their health and wellbeing in ways that mattered to them.

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 had annual health checks. People also had access to opticians and dentists. Some of these were done within the home or at the clinics depending on the persons preference. One example was where a person had been seen by a GP in their own car in the doctor's surgery car park as the person did not want to have treatment anywhere else. A relative said’ They do what they can, full access to GP and anyone else. Someone comes and does routine eye examinations, the Ophthalmologist, we are not involved in that, they went to the house to examine everybody it’s a routine thing.” This meant any underlying health issues could be identified and addressed early.

The provider told people and their relatives about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People were supported to make choices about their day and night routines, with these preferences clearly recorded in their support plans. This included people’s right to be able to choose where they wanted to go in their local area. Accessible information such as meal planners and daily diaries had been used to help people understand and contribute to their daily routines.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People's capacity was assessed in line with the MCA and, where people did not have capacity, decisions were made in their best interest.

We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA), whether appropriate legal authorisations were in place when needed to deprive a person of their liberty, and whether any conditions relating to those authorisations were being met. We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty.

Staff were trained in the MCA and knew the importance of this legislation and making sure people were asked for consent whilst being supported. The management team completed assessments and made decisions in people’s best interests if they lacked capacity to make specific decisions themselves. This meant that people's rights were consistently respected and upheld, ensuring they received care and treatment in line with their individual needs, preferences, and legal protections.