Social Care Solutions (Rothwell) Also known as Peartree Court

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 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 completed pre-admission assessments prior to people moving into the service to ensure people’s needs could be met. This information was used to develop care plans and risk mitigation plans.

Although people had care plans and risk mitigation plans, we found that not all care plans were easy to follow and understand. This meant it wasn’t always clear what action staff needed to take to provide effective care and support. A staff member told us, “Care plans are improving all the time. They give us the information we need to support people correctly. The information in them is getting better all the time.”

People had a monthly review with their key worker – we saw relatives were invited to be part of these reviews and that the registered manager and team leaders had oversight of the review process. A relative told us, “I am involved in care plan reviews”

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 plans were personalised and covered areas such as health, communication and eating and drinking.

Professional guidance was incorporated into people’s care plans and staff delivered care in line with people’s assessed needs. For example, guidance from the speech and language team was incorporated into a person’s eating and drinking care plan and provided staff with guidance on mitigating a risk of choking. A staff member told us, “We follow this guidance when supporting [person] at mealtimes. There have been no choking incidents.”

Staff received regular training to make sure their practice was in accordance with up-to-date best practice guidelines and legislation. For example, staff have received training in safe swallowing and dysphagia.

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 together and with external professionals to meet people’s needs.

Staff communicated effectively through handovers, daily notes and team meetings, ensuring all relevant information was shared promptly. For example, we saw evidence of staff communicating handovers through the electronic care planning systems but also using a specific electronic communications channel.

The service had champions with additional responsibility. For example, one staff member was responsible for health and safety and made sure regular checks were completed and records were maintained.

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 and relatives told us they are supported to attend health checks and appointments. A relative told us, “Carers take [relative] to GP appointments and organise annual health checks”. Another relative told us, “Staff take [relative] to appointments and annual reviews, and feedback to me.”

Records we viewed confirmed people were supported to attend regular health checks and appointments, including annual health checks, dentist, eyes tests, diabetes checks and medicines reviews. Where people were required to attend specialist appointments due to their diagnosis we also saw evidence of these appointments. For example, diabetic eye screening.

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 planned the outcomes they wanted to achieve as part of their care and support plans, detailing how these were going to be achieved. However, we also found the provider had a specific care plan that identified people’s goals and aspirations. The majority of people’s goals and aspirations had been developed around promoting people’s independent living skills. For example, completing all the washing up and going to the gym.

People, relatives and staff told us about the positive impact supported living was having on people’s outcomes. For example, one person told us they had lost significant weight and reduced diabetes medicines, twice, through healthy eating and exercise since they moved to live at the service.

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

People had capacity to consent to their care and treatment, and we saw evidence of this in their care plans.

The registered manager and their team demonstrated an awareness of the Mental Capacity Act and when mental capacity assessments (MCA) and best interest (BI) meetings were required to be carried out.

We observed staff seeking consent from people before carrying out care interventions during our assessment.