Tapton Grove

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 inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to the need for consent.

This service scored 62 (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. Improvements had been made to how people’s needs were assessed since our last inspection. We found clear, up‑to‑date information giving an overview of people’s assessed needs, and this was reviewed regularly. Staff confirmed communication had improved. One staff member told us, “We have enough time to read care plans, and everything is on the [provider’s system]. We also hear the information at handover from the boardroom and then have a quick handover on the unit too. I feel well informed. I’m happy that we have good handovers.”

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. We found care plans had been updated following our last inspection and now detailed important information which linked with current good practice on how to support people with their health conditions. This provided staff with information about the condition and the indicators they needed to be aware of which could be a sign of a person’s health deteriorating. We reviewed people’s care plans and interventions staff had made, these interventions evidenced staff had followed people’s care plan and sought medical advice for people when required. Care plans and risk assessments had been regularly reviewed and updated and relatives confirmed they were kept informed of any changes. People also confirmed they had opportunities to be involved in planning their care. One person told us, “I have always been involved in my care planning, reviews, with the social worker they do talk about my finances and about moving to other accommodation”.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. The provider had made improvements to the way information was communicated in the service. We found shift handovers were in place to ensure staff were updated on any changes to people’s needs. In addition to this, regular meetings were held throughout the service with the management team, giving staff opportunities to discuss updates, reflect on their practice, share important information about people’s needs and contribute to ongoing improvements within the service. Staff confirmed these systems were effective in keeping them up to date with any changes and told us that, alongside the improvements the provider had made to staffing, the staff team now worked well together to support people.

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 provider had increased the range of activities available to people since our last inspection. We found the activities timetable had been co‑produced by staff and people using the service, ensuring it reflected individual preferences. People told us they had regular opportunities to pursue their hobbies and interests, both in groups and through one‑to‑one support from staff. One person said, “I am supported by my named keyworker with going into town for shopping, local coffee shop”. Care plans also showed that people were supported to work towards goals that were important to their health and wellbeing, such as going to the gym or reducing vaping.

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. The provider had made improvements to people’s care plans since our last inspection. We found these now clearly outlined people’s personal goals and the support staff should provide to help them achieve them. We also saw improvements in how staff recorded people’s daily care; records were more detailed and demonstrated the choices people had made throughout their day. The provider was using nationally recognised tools to monitor people’s health conditions, helping staff to identify any changes promptly and ensure people received appropriate support.

We found that some improvements had been made since our last inspection to ensure people’s mental capacity was assessed. However, for some people who had been assessed as lacking capacity for specific decisions, there was no documented best‑interest decision in place. The provider told us they were awaiting input from external professionals, however this meant decisions were being made without the required legal framework or recorded rationale. Although the provider had appointed a lead staff member and introduced systems such as an audit and tracker tool to oversee this work, these measures were not yet effective in ensuring full compliance with the Mental Capacity Act. Best‑interest decisions must be made and documented at the point a decision is required, and delays meant there was no clear legal basis for how decisions were being made or how people’s rights and preferences were being protected. The provider told us, following our inspection, that they would take action to address this. We found the service had made appropriate Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications and monitored the progress of the applications.