Endorphins Group

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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.

Care records demonstrated that individual risks were clearly identified and managed through detailed, person-centred assessments and crisis planning. There was clear guidance for staff on actions to take for example escalation procedures, information about the persons likes and dislikes. Care plans and risk assessments highlighted the importance of maintaining a consistent routine and structure to reduce distress. However, care records did not include detailed information outlining what these routines or structures should be during support visits, which may impact the consistency of care delivery. Following the inspection, leaders acknowledged the feedback and demonstrated a willingness to make improvements.

The provider used incident records, behaviour monitoring, and risk assessments to understand people’s needs and inform support. Where risks increased, appropriate actions were taken, including reviewing placements and adjusting support arrangements. This demonstrated that the provider could respond to changes in need.

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. Managers remained up to date with current guidance through regular alerts and updates from senior leadership, ensuring policies and procedures reflected best practice. They also accessed recognised sources, such as Skills for Care, to review guidance and ensure care delivery remained aligned with current standards.

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. Each person had a personalised document which provided accessible information about the person’s needs, preferences, communication and daily living support, including their allocated hours of care and support arrangements. This ensured documentation was accessible for people when they moved between services, so they only needed to tell their story once.

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. This included gathering information about people’s nutritional needs, including allergies, and supporting people to make healthier dietary changes. For example, staff worked with people to introduce new foods at a pace suited to them.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The provider had effective systems in place to monitor outcomes for people. These included regular reviews, detailed care records and ongoing oversight provided by managers to identify changes in need and measure progress towards individual goals. This enabled staff to adapt support where required and promote positive outcomes for people. However, the provider did not have a formal system in place to monitor visit times or staff check-in and check-out arrangements. Leaders relied on manual oversight processes to monitor visit delivery. Following our feedback, leaders responded positively and were already progressing improvements to strengthen oversight and quality assurance processes.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff told us they talked with people and obtained consent by adapting communication to meet individual needs. For example, where people were non-verbal, staff worked closely with families to understand preferences and used non-verbal cues, gestures and behaviours.