Welbeck 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 individual care and support needs were assessed and planned for, and guidance for staff was regularly reviewed. People and their relatives were engaged in discussions about assessments and care plans. The registered manager told us they assessed people’s needs based on their individual requirements. We saw care plans were regularly updated, and staff had knowledge of people’s needs. Staff told us they felt well informed about peoples care needs and were kept updated with any changes.

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.

The provider worked proactively with external health and social care professionals to ensure people’s care and treatment was reviewed regularly and reflected current best practice. Robust systems and tools were in place to support evidence‑based practice, and staff demonstrated good awareness of these resources. Staff used guidance appropriately to meet people’s assessed needs and promote positive outcomes.

People’s nutrition and hydration needs were assessed, and care plans clearly detailed how these needs should be met. During our observations, staff offered people meaningful choices and followed the guidance outlined in care plans to ensure nutritional and hydration needs were consistently met. Where people were unable to verbally communicate their food preferences, pictorial aids were used effectively to support choice and decision‑making. Relatives confirmed people were offered food and fluids regularly and were provided with a range of options.

Care records showed that a variety of evidence‑based assessments were used to monitor people’s needs, including assessments for mobility, skin integrity, eating and drinking, and moving and handling. Where risks were identified, such as the risk of falls, appropriate risk assessments and management plans were in place to reduce harm and promote people’s safety and independence.

The registered manager demonstrated a clear understanding of, and commitment to, the Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture guidance and had embedded this within everyday practice. Staff had completed accredited training in Learning Disabilities and Autism, ensuring care and treatment was evidence‑based and reflected current best practice. Feedback from people using the service and their relatives, alongside our observations, confirmed that care was personalised, outcome‑focused and consistent with the principles of the guidance. People were supported to access their local community, make informed choices about their care and treatment, and were assisted to engage with relevant healthcare professionals when required, promoting positive outcomes and wellbeing.

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 understood how to liaise with external professionals. There was a handover process where important information and changes to people’s care needs could be shared.

The provider ensured timely referrals to health and social care professionals were made as required. Detailed communication records and hospital passports were consistently used to share essential, person‑centred information, supporting professionals to deliver safe, effective and coordinated care. Staff told us there was a “positive culture” in the home and daily handovers were conducted so they were aware of the most up to date information.

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.

The registered manager explained how healthy eating was actively promoted at Welbeck House and confirmed people living at the service were maintaining a healthy weight. Records and discussions demonstrated positive health outcomes, including evidence of people achieving a healthy weight range between pre‑admission and the time of inspection.

Staff showed a good understanding of their role in promoting people’s health and wellbeing. They supported people with their physical health needs as well as their emotional and mental wellbeing. Clear processes were in place to enable people to make informed choices about their own health and wellbeing, and staff followed detailed guidance to ensure consistent and effective support.

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 and their relatives told us they were actively involved in the care planning process. Family members said, when the service first began supporting someone, care plans were developed collaboratively with the person, their relatives and the relevant professionals.

Regular weekly, monthly and 6 monthly reviews were carried out of people’s care plans. We saw evidence of discussions around personal care needs, health and wellbeing, mobility, future goals and aspirations, family connections, community and social engagement, independence and routine.

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

Systems were in place to ensure people’s consent was obtained before care and treatment was provided. The provider had a Mental Capacity Act (MCA) policy, and staff had received training to support their understanding of the MCA and their responsibilities in practice.

Mental capacity assessments had been completed where required to determine whether people had the capacity to make specific decisions. Where people lacked capacity, best interest decisions were made and documented appropriately. Best interest records clearly outlined the decision being made, the reasons for it, and who had been involved in the decision‑making process.

Individual mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were linked to people’s care plans to ensure consistent and lawful care delivery. People who used the service and their relatives confirmed that staff sought consent before providing care and support, demonstrating that people’s rights were respected.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. Where people were subject to a deprivation of their liberty, appropriate applications had been made to the authorising body and this was reflected in care plans. Staff demonstrated an understanding of best‑interest decision making and told us they supported people in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.