The Halewood Centre

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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection 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.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.
Assessments were completed before care started. Assistant Care Managers carried out initial and ongoing assessments and acted as key contacts for people using the service. Assessments considered people’s physical health, mobility, continence, nutrition, risks and home environment.
 

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.
Care planning demonstrated a clear reablement ethos, with support focused on helping people regain skills and confidence rather than completing tasks for them. Risk assessments identified risks such as falls, infection and mobility issues, with appropriate mitigation in place, including contacting appropriate services to obtain equipment such as shower chairs, lifelines and grab rails.
 

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.
The service worked closely with hospital discharge teams, urgent crisis response, health professionals and local authority teams to support people to remain at home and avoid unnecessary hospital admissions. Staff described attending regular multidisciplinary meetings with health, therapy and pharmacy colleagues to review risks and progress.
Daily service huddles brought together carers, assistant care managers and senior staff to review daily logs, discuss people’s needs and agree next steps. Clear handover processes were in place, including verbal handovers when care transferred to another provider, helping ensure continuity and safety.
 

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.
Reablement plans supported people to rebuild confidence, mobility and daily living skills following illness, falls or hospital admission. Care plans showed clear goals, regular reviews and evidence of progress, with care reduced as people became more independent.
Staff supported people to manage risks in a balanced way, avoiding over‑medicalisation while keeping people safe. Where ongoing health needs were identified, referrals were made for additional equipment or professional input.
People and relatives consistently described positive outcomes. One person told us, “They were brilliant, caring, nothing too much for them, I can’t fault them.” Another relative explained how the service helped their family member remain independent and avoid further hospital admission.
 

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.
Care records showed evidence of improvement, including reduction or ending of care where people regained independence.
The service recorded incidents, safeguarding concerns, complaints and compliments. Analysis showed strong reporting, appropriate escalation and a high volume of positive feedback from people and families. Learning was shared with staff through reminders, training and system changes.
 

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.
Before care started, referrals required appropriate documentation, including mental capacity assessments and best‑interest decision records where people lacked capacity to be in place. Staff demonstrated understanding of consent and the need to involve people and, where appropriate, families in decisions about care. This evidence showed consent was embedded in everyday practice and aligned with people’s rights and preferences.