Menna 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.

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 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.

Prior to anyone moving into the service the registered manager completed an assessment of the person’s needs. This included the person, and people that mattered to them, visiting the service and meeting other residents, the registered manager and staff. This enabled all concerned to decide if Menna would be a suitable place for the person to live. We saw an email from a relative which stated, “I must say that I have been so pleased with [Name’s] transition into Menna House and [Registered manager and member of staff] have been amazing. [Name] really does look happy.”

The registered manager worked with the person and people who knew them well to develop care plans. These were regularly reviewed and updated when people’s needs changed.

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 were supported in line with evidence based best practice. For example, when people expressed their feelings in a way which put themselves or others at risk, referrals were made to an internal positive behaviour support team. They were able to work with the person and staff to develop effective and person-centred ways of supporting them.

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.

There was a stable and consistent staff team who knew people well. Staff told us they communicated well and were updated about any changes. One commented; “I’m very lucky to work with a really good team. We communicate well and work together.”

An external professional commented, “The management team are consistently accessible, responsive, and demonstrate a strong knowledge of their residents, including their individual needs and safety requirements.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff supported people to eat well and take regular exercise. A relative told us, “Staff try and keep [pronoun] mobile and active.”

People had annual health checks and well woman/man checks. People also had access to opticians and dentists. This meant any underlying health issues could be identified and addressed early.

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.

Staff supported people to identify goals and work towards achieving them. These could be leisure-based goals such as going on holiday, or focused on developing skills and confidence when completing daily tasks. Staff discussed what worked well for people, what people could do independently and what they needed help with. This supported people to progress their skills.

Restrictions, which had prevented people from moving freely around the service, had been removed. As a result, people had greater autonomy and choice about where they spent their time. The registered manager told us this had led to a decrease in incidents when people had become distressed due to the limits on their movements.

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

Staff were trained in the Mental Capacity Act 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. We observed staff asking people for consent and offering them choices in all aspects of their lives as they supported them.