Lepton Heights Health Care Limited Also known as Exemplar Health Care

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 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 and communication needs with them.

Systems were followed to make sure the process of assessing and reviewing people’s needs was thorough, up to date and involved all relevant people. One of the provider’s clinical assessors supported the manager or clinical manager with the process. Any changes in care and support following review of people’s assessed needs were communicated to staff through daily huddles and handovers.

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.

Recognised tools and guidance were used when planning, reviewing and delivering people’s care. Information and advice from involved health care professionals was included in people’s care plans and was followed by staff. For example, we saw staff following a course of action recommended by the speech and language therapist (SALT) known as ‘server strategy’ to support a person eating.

People could access drinks and snacks as they wished, and we saw changes to the menu had been made as a result of feedback from people.

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 effectively as a team and with other professionals to support people. We saw an example of how staff supported the continued involvement of health care professionals even when a person had moved out of their area.

The new manager was getting to know the local area and had been in contact with commissioners and health care providers to introduce themselves, share information about the service and establish working relationships.

The manager was also making sure staff working within the service were confident in knowing what their role involved and forging effective team working between all staff working at the service.

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.

We saw examples of how people’s health and independence had improved as a result of the support provided by staff. For example, one person’s physical health and acceptance of care had improved as a result of staff working with them and the wider care team to make sure they had appropriate equipment.

Staff received training to support people with their individual health needs. As well as training in managing physical conditions, 2 staff had successfully trained to become mental health first aiders.

Information on improving healthy living was available for people and staff in a ‘5 steps to wellbeing’ poster and people had access to a small gym within the service.

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.

Regular and meaningful reviews of people’s care enabled staff to assess whether the care and support provided was meeting people’s needs and achieving the desired outcomes. Where reviews identified a different approach may better support the person, appropriate changes were made. This person-centred approach resulted in positive outcomes for people living at the service, including improved independence and abilities, better physical and mental wellbeing, and, where appropriate, a reduction in the use of medication.

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

Staff gave people information about the care and support they needed to deliver and sought consent from people before delivering it. Senior staff had received training in assessing people’s mental capacity and cascaded this training through the nursing team.

The service was working within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and best interest processes were followed where people lacked capacity to make decisions. Records of best interest meetings did not always evidence the involvement of involved health and social care professionals. This was addressed by staff during the assessment period.