Selly Park

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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 confirmed their individual needs were assessed and support was provided when needed. People told us following the appointment of the new registered manager, they felt more involved in their care and their views were taken into account. A relative told us, “Since [registered manager’s name] has taken over we are more kept informed monthly about what is going on. We are kept more in the loop and given a monthly timetable.”

Regular reviews of people’s care needs took place to ensure staff had access to the most up to date information regarding people’s care needs and people and their loved ones were consulted about their care.

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.

Systems were in place to ensure people’s healthcare needs were routinely monitored for any change. Actions had been taken to ensure people’s food and fluid intake was routinely monitored and this information was used to inform the weekly clinical risk meetings.

The registered manager was open and receptive during the inspection. They ensured their own learning was shared with staff which ensured they were up to date with the latest legislation and evidence based good practice. A relative told us, “The care [person] gets now is excellent, I can’t fault it, they are well looked after.”

People’s nutrition and hydration needs were being met. At the time of the inspection, there was a heatwave and we saw staff constantly encouraging people to drink more fluids. For those people who had specific dietary needs, information was shared with the chef and kitchen staff to ensure people’s individual dietary needs and preferences were met. One person told us, “I’m Coeliac and so they provide me with gluten-free food” and another said, “I think it [food on offer] is quite good. Lunch today was excellent.” Another person told us, "We have a committee meeting, and we can say what we would like on the menus. They [staff] do their best.”

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 told us they were provided with the information needed to support people and were kept informed of any changes in people’s needs through a comprehensive handover, daily heads of department meetings and daily exchanges with staff.

The service had access to appropriate healthcare services to ensure they were able to meet people’s needs. Staff told us if they had not been on shift a few days the information was there to ensure they were up to date with any changes in people’s care needs. A member of staff told us, “We get a good handover, [registered manager’s name] makes everything quite clear, I wasn’t here yesterday but they put everything on the tablets [electronic care planning system] – you have to read through it if you haven’t been for a few days and at least you can see what has been happening.”

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 told us they were supported to access a variety of healthcare services to meet their needs, including their GP.

Weekly clinical risk meetings were in place to ensure people’s health and wellbeing needs were closely monitored and any changes were identified promptly. These meetings supported the timely identification of additional healthcare input where required. For example, where a person experienced skin breakdown, a referral was made to tissue viability nurses to obtain specialist advice and guidance to support effective assessment, treatment, and ongoing management of the condition.

The registered manager had implemented a new electronic care planning system, which provided staff with timely access to up-to-date information about people’s health needs, identified risks and personal preferences. This supported the delivery of person-centred care that reflected people’s individual needs and how they wished to be supported. For example, 1 person had set a goal to lose weight to help manage a specific health condition. Staff provided appropriate support and guidance to help them work towards this outcome. Staff also demonstrated a good understanding of people’s emotional wellbeing needs. For instance, 1 person had expressed anxiety about an upcoming hospital appointment. Staff were aware of the support required and provided ongoing reassurance, encouragement and clear explanations about the benefits of attending the appointment to support the person’s health and wellbeing.

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.

People were supported by staff who understood their individual needs and preferences. Staff regularly checked on people's wellbeing and took time to establish how they wished to be supported, helping to ensure care was delivered in a person-centred way. Where accidents and incidents took place, they were investigated and reviewed for lessons learnt. Regular monitoring of people’s blood sugars had been introduced to provide staff a baseline figure and identify where people could potentially or may become unwell. We observed this information being shared during a handover meeting and staff commenting on what the results meant for each individual.

Weekly clinical risk meetings had recently been introduced to assist in the regular monitoring of people’s health needs and provide the management with effective and timely oversight of any changes identified. This helped staff understand people's usual healthcare needs and identify when a person's condition or wellbeing had changed, allowing appropriate support to be provided.

Not all staff were aware of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and what this meant for people. The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Whilst staff understood the importance of supporting people's rights, some were not fully aware of the DoLS arrangements in place within the service. The nominated individual had identified this as an area for development and described plans to improve staff knowledge and understanding through additional training and oversight.

People told us staff always obtained their consent prior to supporting them and we observed this. One person said, “They [staff] don’t force you to do anything.”

People’s capacity and ability to consent to their care was recorded in their care records and we saw evidence of best interests meetings taking place to ensure people were supported correctly and in line with the appropriate guidance and legislation.

Systems were in place to provide the registered manager with oversight of DoLS applications that had been submitted and the dates DoLS authorisations were due to run out.