Saivi 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.

Staff completed a comprehensive assessment of each person’s physical, mental health and communication needs prior to admission. Care plans were reviewed regularly to ensure any changes in people’s care and support needs was documented and guidance for staff given. When there were reviews of their placement conducted by pacing authorities, staff supported people to provide their opinions and experiences of their care.

People received care in line with current legislation and good practice. This included planning care and ensuring people’s care and support needs were met in collaboration with them.

Prior to the assessment we received information that people may be receiving inappropriate foods when they had a swallowing difficulty which could lead to choking. We spoke with the registered manager about this, made observations, spoke with care staff and reviewed care records. We observed a person who required a soft food. They were served food which was appropriate to their needs and supported to eat this by staff. Staff understood what type of foods the person should be offered and there was information in the kitchen. Care plans and risk assessments were detailed and reflected needs around eating and drinking. The registered manager told us staff had subsequently received dysphagia training and had been observed to ensure people were receiving the appropriate care and support.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. The home worked closely with healthcare professionals such as, learning disability teams, speech and language therapists (SALT) and GP’s to maintain and improve people’s wellbeing. People were also supported to access routine healthcare in a timely way.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control.

Staff knew people well and were able to recognise if there was a change in people’s mental or physical health. Staff knew how to report and refer to appropriate services if they noticed any concerns. People were encouraged to attend routine healthcare appointments to support their health and well-being. There were records of people attending doctors, dentists and chiropodists. Where there were any treatment or recommendations from appointments, care plans were updated to reflect this and staff informed during staff handovers. Staff created health passports which documented people’s individual care and support needs such as ways to communicate, health history and anything specific to the person. These were used by health and social care professionals to support people in the way they needed.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it.

People’s outcomes were monitored through regular reviews of care. These reviews involved the person, (when appropriate), their relatives, staff and representatives from commissioning authorities. People and relatives were encouraged talk about their needs, any changes in care and things that could potentially improve people’s wellbeing and quality of life.

The service worked within the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff and leaders understood the principles of the MCA and how this impacted on the people they worked with. Staff consulted with others such as informal carers, families and/or advocates, where appropriate.When people lacked the mental capacity to make decisions about their care, the staff and the person’s representatives made decisions in their best interests.