Midway Supported Services Worcestershire

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 had detailed and comprehensive assessments of people’s needs. Care plans and risk assessments were detailed, however during the first day of inspection we found where additional monitoring of aspects of people’s health needs had been identified there was a lack of detail on what was being monitored. Where people had required monitoring of seizures related to their epilepsy, detail was lacking impacting upon the quality of information gathered for consideration in future treatment. Another person's care plans identified the requirement for bowel monitoring, again the information gathered lacked detail. We fed this back to the registered manager and provider, and we found on day 2 of the inspection significant improvements had been made to how people’s health was being monitored, seizures were more clearly detailed and bowel monitoring was more accurate in the information it provided.

The provider and registered manager ensured current evidence based practice was reflected in the care provided. We found additional information relating to specific needs were detailed and accessible for staff and policies and procedures reflected current practice.

The registered manager and provider worked hard to ensure they supported people to engage with the services they needed to meet their needs. Where required people were referred to specialist healthcare professionals to support their health needs.

Staff told us they felt the team worked well together; there was a good level of morale and motivation to do their best for people. We found staff teams were adaptable to people’s changing needs and communication in the staff team was effective.

The provider and registered manager ensured people were supported to access the services they needed to maximise their health. We found where people’s health conditions had become more complex, the staff team had responded with enhanced monitoring and additional support to appointments.

Staff supported people with a range of opportunities tailored around people’s own interests and ambitions. One person showed us how they had input into their own memory file, which consisted of photos and accounts of all the new things they had tried.

There was a belief by staff and the management team that good health was holistic and not just focused on physical health.

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 practices. Feedback from the people in receipt of care was encouraged and we found a service that adapted to what people wanted.

The provider had systems to monitor the outcomes for people. Where we had identified areas for focus and improvement the provider had responded quickly to implement improvements. For example, people had fed back to the provider that they wanted more use of the courtyard to host activities like BBQ's, the provider had then actioned this with an increase in outside activities. The provider had also changed menus and opportunities to taste different foods following meetings with people in the service.

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

Staff received training and understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). We found people were supported to make choices and decisions and information about people’s capacities was in peoples care records and reviewed regularly.