Townsend Manor

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 changed to requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 58 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Leaders undertook pre assessments of people’s health, well-being, care and support and communication needs prior to them moving into the service. Relatives told us, “I trust them, when I went in last week, I had to call one of the staff to help me. I feel included in decisions and conversation.” And, “When he went in, they did a Care Plan and every month they come to us and ask if there is anything we need added to his plan and they abide by our wishes.”

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

During this assessment we found on occasion that care and treatment was not always delivered in line with good practice. This included some staff not working in line with Speech and Language Therapists guidance as set out in people’s care plans, when offering people choices of snacks. We also found some delays with updates to people’s care plans following a change in guidance from health professionals. Improvements were put in place during this assessment. However, it is too soon to evidence that improvements have been embedded and will be sustained.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services.

External health and social care professionals gave us examples of joint working, and whilst some felt there was still areas for improvement around communication, we also received positive feedback. A health professional confirmed, “I have been genuinely impressed by the quality of care, the depth of compassion, and the dedication shown by [the registered manager] and the entire staff team.”

Leaders and the staff team worked across teams and services to support people. They helped ensure that where required, external health and social care professionals were involved in people’s care to promote their well-being. A relative confirmed to us, “The doctor comes in every week, and they have a list of people who need to be seen and if [family member] is unwell, they will call the doctor or district nurse. He has a chiropodist, he saw an optician once.”

However, we found examples where staff did not work effectively with other teams or services. We found monitoring guidance was not always updated and followed. This put service users at risk of harm.

Leaders and the staff team supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. A relative confirmed to us, “He used to be able to do things for himself and now they support him and now they have to do more for him. Some days he could do things and others he couldn’t, so the staff adapt to his needs.”

However, whilst relatives told us their family member received support to access healthcare both inside and outside of the service, we found evidence of improvements needed so that the staffing team were enabled to support people to live healthier lives where possible. This included staff not always following the guidance within people’s care records and risk assessments around known risks.

Leaders and the staff team did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it, in line with the persons care plans and risk assessments. During our assessment we found inaccurate records for people and information that was not always up to date. We also found examples of where staff were not following the guidance to support people safely and effectively as set out in their care plans and risk assessments. This increased the risk to people’s well-being. During this assessment and following feedback to the provider, registered manager and senior management team, improvements were put in place. However, it is too soon to evidence that these improvement actions will be fully embedded and sustained.

Leaders and the staff team told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Where appropriate, mental capacity assessments were undertaken and completed in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

In the main, people and their relatives confirmed to us that staff asked for their consent before supporting them and listened to and respected their choices. Where people lacked the mental capacity to make a choice, staff supported them in the best interest. A relative told us, “I don’t think they do things without his say so, he had a spell where he wasn’t that great, and they were good at following his needs.”