CSL Lincoln

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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Comprehensive assessments were carried out, covering physical health and communication requirements, which informed the development of each support plan. As part of assessments, the provider considered the physical environment to ensure effective support for people in their own homes. However, sensory needs were not always assessed to identify strategies for managing challenges, improving communication and creating environments that potentially could support people to have a better quality of life. Care plans were regularly reviewed; however, some contained outdated information, which could lead to staff or other services relying on incorrect details. Information was often repetitive and lengthy, making key guidance difficult to locate.

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.

Relatives were assured staff were confident and competent when providing care and support to their family members. People were actively involved in all aspects of their support plans, regardless of their abilities. When full involvement was not possible, the service captured people’s views in other ways, such as through observations and by using staff and family members’ knowledge of the person. As mentioned in other areas of the report, some support plans required reviewing to ensure information was up to date and relevant. However, the provider monitored changes to planned support and demonstrated positive outcomes for people.

Staff were aware of specific dietary needs and how to meet them; however, a care plan did not include SALT guidance or signpost to where this guidance could be found. Despite this, we were assured staff understood the person’s needs and there was no risk to their safety or wellbeing.

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 felt communication with external partners and within the team was effective, enabling them to plan and deliver people’s care and support. However, some relatives felt there could be better communication with other services to ensure continuity of care.

People were kept informed about ongoing health and care arrangements and when possible were actively involved in planning. Relatives confirmed information was readily available for hospital admissions and reported effective communication and coordination between health professionals and staff.

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.

Staff told us they supported people to be as independent as possible and involved them in discussions about health and wellbeing to encourage healthier choices, while ensuring the approach was empowering rather than controlling. A staff member told us when supporting people, they always allocated enough time to ensure support was person-centred and adjustments were made when possible.

The provider monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. However, information was lacking descriptive detail to help managers understand people’s quality-of-life outcomes. New processes were being introduced to identify people’s short and long-term goals so outcomes could be planned and achieved. The management team had identified the shortfall in the digital system and was developing this to address it.

Records showed systems and processes were in place to monitor key health indicators regularly. This included tracking bowel movements and food and fluid intake to identify changes early and prevent health complications. Staff explained how they used health monitoring information and told us they would escalate any concerns to managers immediately to ensure issues were addressed promptly and people remained safe and well.

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

Staff had received training on the Mental Capacity Act. However, a staff member told us they felt not all staff fully understood the best interests process or how to support people who lacked capacity to make specific decisions. They believed this sometimes failed to promote a good quality of life. Staff communicated with people about their choices using alternative methods, such as objects of reference and visual aids, when verbal communication was not possible. Some relatives felt this could be developed further to reduce distress and improve outcomes.

The provider demonstrated compliance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Mental capacity assessments and best interests decisions were completed to ensure decisions about a person’s support or daily life were made lawfully and in their best interests.