Weaver House

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 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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People and their representatives were not always meaningfully involved in assessing and reviewing their needs. Care plans contained information about people’s support needs, but did not always reflect their wellbeing, preferences or longer-term goals. This increased the risk that care was not fully tailored to people’s individual circumstances. The provider had identified this as an area for improvement. The manager had begun reviewing care plans, and those updated during the assessment were more person-centred and focused on people’s goals.

However, staff understood people’s health conditions and day-to-day support needs. People’s needs were assessed before they moved to the home, and senior staff considered whether the service could meet their needs and whether they would be compatible with people already living there.
 

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.

Staff understood people’s nutritional needs, including how health conditions affected their diet and any specific food textures they required. People were supported to make healthier choices, which had helped some people achieve planned weight loss while eating safely.

People were supported to eat and drink in ways that reflected their needs and preferences. Where people were at risk of unplanned weight loss, staff sought advice from healthcare professionals and followed their recommendations.

The manager also identified where staff needed additional knowledge about specific health conditions and arranged relevant training to strengthen their understanding and practice.

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 worked well together and communicated effectively to meet people’s needs. Handover meetings at the start and end of shifts supported continuity of care, and we observed staff sharing relevant information and working collaboratively.

Staff knew when to seek specialist advice and worked with health and social care professionals, including GPs, occupational therapists, dentists, psychiatrists and specialist teams. This supported coordinated care and access to specialist input when needed. Staff also kept relatives informed about people’s health and achievements.

External health and social care professionals were positive about communication with the service. One professional told us, “Weaver House have great communication and are always willing to support with any visits that I plan.”

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 were supported to maintain and improve their health and wellbeing. Staff encouraged people to make healthier choices around diet, physical activity and personal and oral hygiene. People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed, including walking, dancing and sports.

One person told us how staff were helping them register at a local GP practice and understood the support they may need during appointments. Staff supported people to access GPs, dentists and annual health checks. This helped people access healthcare and address health concerns when needed. One staff member said, “I would be listened to if I felt [a person] needed a health appointment.”

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Records did not always show how people’s progress towards their individual goals was reviewed or how support was adapted in response.

The provider used a range of tools to monitor people’s health and wellbeing, including activity assessments, the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) and Waterlow assessments, which identify the risk of developing pressure damage. However, some assessments had not been completed or reviewed within the provider’s expected timescales due to how they had been set up on the electronic care planning system. This meant the provider could not always be assured people’s risks and outcomes were being consistently reviewed and monitored.

Despite this, staff monitored people’s physical and mental wellbeing, including their weight where required. Staff recognised signs of deterioration and escalated concerns to health and social care professionals. People were also supported to maintain their independence, social relationships and take part in activities they enjoyed.
 

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

People’s rights around consent were respected. Staff sought people’s consent before providing support and respected their choices. We observed staff asking permission before entering people’s rooms and paying attention to people’s verbal responses and body language to check they agreed to the support offered.

Staff understood the importance of giving people choice. One staff member said, “We give choices basically, about everything. It’s important to respect people’s choice. Sometimes we know it is better to stand back.”

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and understood how to apply its principles. Where there were concerns about a person’s ability to make a specific decision, mental capacity assessments were completed, and decisions were made in the person’s best interests where required. There was information available to staff which reminded them of the key principles of the Mental Capacity Act.