Thornbury Community Services

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

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.

We reviewed 6 care records and saw that staff completed a comprehensive mental health assessment of the patient in a timely manner at, or soon after, admission.
Staff assessed patients’ physical health needs in a timely manner after admission.
Staff developed care plans that met the needs identified during assessment.
Care plans were personalised, holistic and recovery-oriented.
Staff updated care plans when necessary.
 

Staff provided a range of care and treatment interventions suitable for the patient group. The interventions were those recommended by, and were delivered in line with, guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
Staff ensured that patients had good access to physical healthcare, including access to specialists when needed.
Staff assessed and met patients’ needs for food and drink and for specialist nutrition and hydration.
Staff were experienced and qualified, and had the right skills and knowledge to meet the needs of the patient group.
Managers provided new staff with appropriate induction.
However, not all staff received supervision (meetings to discuss case management, to reflect on and learn from practice, and for personal support and professional development) and appraisal of their work performance. We reviewed 6 staff supervision records and saw that supervision was only logged in 3. Managers knew there was a problem with how supervision was being recorded and this stopped them from having the full picture on who had received supervision and who had not . Some staff told us that they had not received supervision for some time.
Managers identified the learning needs of staff and provided them with opportunities to develop their skills and knowledge.
Managers ensured that staff received the necessary specialist training for their roles.
 

Staff held regular and effective multidisciplinary meetings.
Staff shared information about patients at effective handover meetings within the team (for example, shift to shift).
The teams had effective working relationships with teams outside the organisation (for example, local authority social services and GPs).
 

Staff supported patients to live healthier lives – for example, by helping a client to reduce their energy drink consumption.

Staff recorded outcomes for people by measuring behaviour data and showcasing any reductions in restrictive practise.

Staff took all practical steps to enable patients to make their own decisions
For patients who might have impaired mental capacity, staff assessed and recorded capacity to consent appropriately. They did this on a decision-specific basis with regard to significant decisions.
When patients lacked capacity, staff made decisions in their best interests, recognising the importance of the person’s wishes, feelings, culture and history