St Andrew's Healthcare - 17 The Avenue

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 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’s systems and processes in relation to storage and access to the person’s care records and important information to support staff, were not effectively managed.

Whilst the person was involved as fully as possible about how their care and support needs were met, some improvements were required to how their individual needs were assessed and how information was managed, to ensure staff had easy access to current guidance.

For example, important information about the person’s needs were stored in various electronic places and in addition paper care files were used. When reviewing care records on site and documents forwarded to us, these were not always the most up to date records. The management team agreed a review of how information was stored and manged was required. This meant there was a risk the person may receive inconsistent care and support.

The new manager had started to develop and implement a new care plan format to improve information and guidance for staff and this was ongoing. Further time was required for new and improved systems and processes to be embedded and sustained.

The provider planned and delivered the person’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

Safe and effective systems and processes to ensure foods were served safely were not in place. For example, cooked foods did not have their temperatures tested to ensure food served had been cooked as required. This meant there was a risk to people’s health and safety by not having procedures in place.

The person’s nutritional and hydration needs, including dietary and cultural preferences had been assessed and planned for.

The person was supported by staff to plan, shop and prepare meals and healthy eating was encouraged. The person had access to the kitchen and could access drinks and snacks when they wished.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support the person who used the service to achieve positive outcomes.

There was a multi-disciplinary team approach to care and support and the person was involved and at the centre of decision making. The provider had systems and processes of sharing information with external services to support consistency in care.

Staff were supportive of each other and communication procedures were in place across teams that enabled staff to be kept aware and up to date of important information about the person’s needs.

Feedback from external healthcare professionals confirmed there was a collaborative approach to care and treatment, information was shared effectively.

The provider supported the person to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported the person to live a healthy life and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

The person was supported to engage in physical exercise such as regular walks to help keep them fit and healthy. Staff supported the person to plan, shop and cook meals and promoted healthy eating.

Staff supported the person to attend health services including health screening, and their health was monitored.

External healthcare professional feedback was positive. Comments included, “The patient and support staff always attend appointments on time. Staff are interactive in appointments and show good communication skills. They are able to confidently answer any questions about the patient if required, showing good knowledge.”

The provider routinely monitored the person’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 the person themselves.

The person was effectively supported by a multi-disciplinary team who they met with regularly. They were involved in discussions and decisions as fully as possible about their care and treatment, including their individual goals and aspirations.

The person’s care journey demonstrated how they had progressed, including developing their independence and achieving positive outcomes.

The provider told the person about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The person was involved as fully as possible in discussions and decisions about their care and support. Where concerns were identified about the person’s ability to consent to a specific decision about their care and treatment, a mental capacity assessment and best interest decision was completed.

The management team demonstrated a good awareness of when and how the person’s ability to consent to their care may be impacted upon at times, resulting in fluctuating capacity and had plans in place to address this if required.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and had access to the provider’s MCA policy and procedure.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in relation to the MCA. A staff member said, “The Mental Capacity Act is established provide a legal framework for acting or making decisions on behalf of people who lack the capacity to make decisions for themselves.”

Within care records it was evident that staff had taken the person’s views and wishes into account, where possible, when planning their care. Staff made every effort to relay information to the person in a way they would understand.

We observed staff interacted with the person respectfully, they offered informed choices and acted upon the person’s wishes.