Sahara Parkside

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 assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this. However, improvements were needed to ensure that people’s family and carers were always appropriately consulted when best interests decisions were being made.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

When the provider assessed people’s needs they considered their individual needs, wishes and compatibility to see if they should live with others or on their own. Where living with others was not possible the provider made allowances for flats to be used for single occupancy.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation, current evidence-based good practice and standards which was reflected in the training offered to staff. They engaged professional support to ensure people’s health care needs were met

Care plans detailed a range of daily health checks including the amounts of food and drink people had each day to ensure they were getting the right amounts.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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.

The provider told us people had health checks routinely carried out every 6 months, but these could take place more frequently if needed. Staff talked about the importance of offering people choice in line with their preferences. They told us how people were supported to cook, showing people appropriate food portions with an emphasis on what was healthy.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it.

They were able to demonstrate how people’s health was monitored and through their knowledge of people, when to seek professional help to achieve the right outcomes for people.

The provider made efforts to tell people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Where people could consent, they had signed their care plans giving their permission around their support. Capacity assessments were in place for people who could not consent, these were around medicines, support with personal care and financial management. These were well written and represented the best interests of the individual. However, the provider’s care planning system did not indicate whether other relevant people such as families were involved in the decision making process and we saw no minutes of these discussions to reflect this.

The provider had a CCTV system in place throughout the building. This was apparent and people were informed about it. We saw evidence that people living in the service had consented to this and staff had been made aware of it when commencing employment with the provider.