Creative Support – Brent 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

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 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, physical environment and communication needs with them.

Peoples care needs were assessed comprehensively prior to the commencement of their support. Pre-assessment processes ensured that care was tailored to meet individual needs from the outset and were continually reviewed and updated with people and their relatives.

A relative told us, “Staff have been there since [relative] moved in, and [relative] needs have changed since then. They know [relative] and what [relative’s] likes and dislikes are.”

Staff told us they assessed people’s needs which helped to identify their support needs and any areas of risk. One member of staff said, “I got to know [person] and understand them better now. How to support them was identified in their plan and I read this first then discussed with the person and then I felt confident to work with them.” There was clear evidence of ongoing updates to care documentation in response to changes in people’s health and wellbeing. New people could visit the accommodation and even have a trial before making any decisions.

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.

Support plans demonstrated meaningful involvement of people in their development, reflecting both clinical needs and personal preferences. These plans were detailed and person-centred, ensuring that support was aligned with individuals’ health requirements as well as their personal goals and wishes. We found that staff monitored all of people’s needs including peoples skin integrity, when they were at risk of skin breakdown. This helped ensure people received care and treatment in line with their assessed needs.

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 provider worked with staff and other services to help support people. Regular staff meetings were held, which enabled staff to discuss ways in which people could be better supported. The provider worked effectively with families, and other agencies who were involved in the provision of care for people such as, the local authority, physiotherapists, GP’s and pharmacies. A relative told us, “When [relative] was discharged from the hospital after having an operation, the Physio came out to check, staff tried to encourage [relative] in the beginning to stretch and move, which helped recovery.”

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 their health and independence. The provider worked well with healthcare professionals to enable people to access healthcare. Staff encouraged fluid intake, exercise, and engagement in hobbies. There was a variety of activities people could attend such as gardening, craft classes, music therapy and lunch clubs.

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.

The quality and safety of the service people received was routinely monitored by managers and staff at both a provider and service level by conducting regular audits and checks and obtaining stakeholder feedback.

The service ensured that people’s health care needs were met, and external support was sought if required.

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

Consent from people was consistently sought and documented. People were asked about their preferences during each visit, such as whether they wanted creams applied, which were prescribed for as and when needed usage. Staff respected people’s choices and involved them in decisions about their care and support. Where people lacked the mental capacity to make those decisions, the provider consulted with people’s relatives and advocates where appropriate. No concerns were identified regarding mental capacity or legal safeguards. A person who lived there said, “I know all the staff by their first names, they are polite and knock on the door, and they are courteous.”