Blackberry Hill

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 67 (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. People’s needs were assessed before or when they started using the service. People’s health conditions, behaviours, and communication needs were included in assessments.

Relatives confirmed assessment processes were thorough and personalised. One relative told us there was a “very thorough induction assessment to keep [relative] safe and happy. The registered manager and deputy manager went to [relatives’ previous placement] and met staff before. They saw [relative] and observed [relative] and talked to staff at [relatives’ previous placement] who knew [relative] well.”

One professional told us, “My overall impression of the service is very good. My customer’s transition was very good. The care team worked hard to get to know [customer] and to ensure that the support plan met [customers] needs effectively.”

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. We received mixed feedback regarding how people’s personal belongings were looked after and nutrition. Some relatives felt staff offered good food and supported healthy diets whilst others reported concerns. Comments included, “There's a variety of good choices, healthy food, we’re happy with that” and “Too much snacking not enough healthy or nutrition. It’s difficult for the staff team, they need education.” Concerns regarding clothing being misplaced or poorly maintained was also raised. The registered manager told us these concerns were known and they were working with families to resolve them.

Staff had access to training which helped to make sure the care and support they provided was in accordance with up-to-date best practice guidelines and legislation. Staff spoken with were knowledgeable about people’s health conditions, for example understanding early seizure indicators and protocols, or adapting support approaches depending on a person’s presentation that day.

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 effectively with each other and with external professionals. Relatives consistently told us their family members were supported to access healthcare services in a timely manner, and that communication from the service was open and responsive. One relative told us, “GP visits they are good at that. They don’t leave it, they call GP, 111 or 999.”

Professionals provided positive feedback about multi‑agency working. One professional told us, “The staff are friendly, proactive and responsive. They welcome visits and encourage social care staff to engage in their service. The key worker for my customer had a good level of knowledge of social and health care needs when I completed the review.”

During our visits we observed staff communicating with each other promptly and effectively. For example, when an agency worker asked for help as they were worried a person might be having a seizure, another staff member responded immediately to assess and support the person.

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 were supported to lead active and meaningful lives. People accessed a wide range of activities, both at home and in the community such as walking, swimming, visiting local attractions and music-based sessions.

Relatives told us staff keep people “as active as possible” and that activities were tailored to individuals. One relative told us, “[Relative] has a lovely quality of life, we couldn’t be happier with it. Everyday [relative] has a walk or goes into town, if weather is not good [relative] goes for a drive and cup of tea, they keep [relative] busy, that’s great, it’s what we wanted for [relative] and what we got.”

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. Peoples care plans detailed planned outcomes with guidance on how to achieve them. Evidence of positive outcomes achieved were provided throughout the assessment. For example, staff have supported people in a way that have enabled them to reduce anxieties. This has resulted in a reduction in medicines for 1 person, and for another person they have started engaging in more activities within the community.

Relatives offered examples of meaningful progress, such as people becoming more active, engaging more socially, or maintaining independence in personal care with support. One relative told us, “They are very proactive. They help [relative] do things for themselves and respect [relatives] independence.”

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. When people did not have capacity to consent to their care, mental capacity assessments were not always completed in accordance with legislation to provide care in their best interests. Care plans lacked mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions and those in place were not always decision specific.

Staff understood people’s communication needs and used a range of tools to support choice and gain consent. This included PECS (Picture exchange communication system), signs, objects of reference and visual cues. This enabled people to make everyday decisions about what to eat, what to wear, or how to spend their time.