St Anthony

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. A thorough pre-assessment process was in place which first involved reviewing paperwork and any existing care plans from other services or agencies. The registered manager would review people’s needs to make sure the staff had the required training and skills to support people safely. People transitioned into the service gradually to make sure they were happy and that it was the right place for them to live. As far as possible staff were matched with people according to their skills but also according to their personalities, likes and interests. People were assigned ‘key workers’, a staff member with specific responsibility for the person. Staff therefore quickly got to know people well and were able to provide them with the support they needed. After moving in there was a six week review with the person, their relatives or advocates and staff. Any issues were addressed and care plans and risk assessments were updated as required. There then followed yearly reviews of people’s care and support which would be more frequent in the event of an incident or illness or if a person had spent some time in hospital.

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 contained positive behaviour support plans that were unique to the person and their needs. These plans had been written with the person and people were then able to contribute and inform staff about their needs and how they liked to be approached when feeling unwell or anxious. This was in line with the ‘right support’ element of positive care for people living with learning disabilities. It promoted people’s choice in how they wanted to be supported at any given time. Care plans also contained details of medical interventions and treatments. Each was accompanied by notes reflecting best interest meetings where appropriate and then application of least restrictive practice. Relatives told us they thought the support given to their loved ones was proportionate and meaningful.

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 had fostered good relationships with other health and social professionals that resulted in positive outcomes for people whose support was rounded and comprehensive. The service arranged all appointments for people including the dentist, chiropodist and occupational therapist as needed. Care plans contained summary documents highlighting people’s support needs that were immediately available to visiting professionals. People received the professional support needed which was in line with the ‘right care’ element of positive care for people living with a learning disability and promoted their human rights in receiving equitable care and support. Relatives told us of good lines of communication with the service and they were kept informed whenever their loved ones had appointments or in the event of an emergency when for example, people, had to be taken to hospital. Professionals confirmed what the registered manager had told us. One said, “I would describe this (professional relationship and access to support for people), as excellent. Very prompt and very supportive. Another added, “Information I have seen suggests they communicate with other external professionals as needed and follow up in a timely way.”

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’s health and care needs were monitored and records kept using recognised systems of measurement. For example, the use of Waterlow scores, a process to measure people’s susceptibility to developing pressure sores. People’s weight’s were regularly checked and records kept. Care plans contained a medical history section which provided details of all medical appointments and interventions people had experienced. Relatives told us that staff knew people well and knew their medical support needs. They were able to detect subtle changes in people’s presentation which allowed early interventions to make sure people received the best possible care.

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’s health and care needs were monitored and records kept using recognised systems of measurement. For example, the use of Waterlow scores, a process to measure people’s susceptibility to developing pressure sores. People’s weight’s were regularly checked and records kept. Care plans contained a medical history section which provided details of all medical appointments and interventions people had experienced. Relatives told us that staff knew people well and knew their medical support needs. They were able to detect subtle changes in people’s presentation which allowed early interventions to make sure people received the best possible care.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People were supported to make decisions about their daily routines and activities. Staff knew the importance of gaining consent from people before providing any supportive intervention. Staff also told us that if people said or indicated ‘no’ then they would not then proceed with a task. A member of staff said, “I’d ask why, maybe try someone else (staff) to carry out the task or simply try again later. Never force anyone.” A relative added, “I know they make their own choices. They avoid day care as it’s too noisy. That’s their choice and they respect that. They are never forced to do anything they do not want to.” Decision specific mental capacity assessments were in place. Examples included, receiving personal care, administration of some medicines and consent to receiving vaccinations. These were reviewed regularly. People not able to make their own decisions were supported by staff. Where complex decisions were made for example, advanced decisions about future care, there were best interest meetings held involving the person, their loved ones, staff and other professionals. These were documented with rationales being recorded and each decision was reviewed at least six monthly, and constantly kept under review. People were free to move around the service as they pleased however Deprivation of Liberty safeguards (DoLS) were in place for some people to guarantee their safety. Again these were reviewed regularly with the local authority DoLS team.