Housing 21 - Rowan Croft

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 the same. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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.

Whilst a system to assess people’s needs was in place, some improvements were required to ensure assessments fully reflected people’s needs and aligned with best practice guidance.

Assessments following falls were not always reviewed, pressure area risk assessments were not always accurate, and some assessments linked to specific health conditions required additional detail. The manager acknowledged these gaps and told us they would be addressed.

Despite these shortfalls, we did not see any negative impact on the effectiveness of care provided. People and relatives told us staff assessed people’s needs. One relative told us, “They check his care plan on a regular basis and it also gets reviewed regularly, it was this year. I am happy with his care plan.”

Staff delivered care that met people’s needs and followed evidence-based practice, although some records did not always reflect this consistently. People and relatives spoke positively about staff. One relative told us, “I have no problems with any of them; they are all competent. His care has been top notch.”

People and relatives told us safe moving and handling procedures were followed. One relative said, “She has just started with a new chair and needs hoisting into it. There are always 2 staff and we have had no problems.” We observed 2 staff attending a person’s flat to support them to move with the hoist in line with their assessed needs.

The service had an on‑site restaurant which was run by an external company. We heard that some people enjoyed going there independently, while others were supported by staff. People and relatives told us people’s nutritional needs were met. One relative said, “They will make things for her. Some days she will be hungrier than others but they do try to encourage her to eat more.”

Staff, teams, and external professionals worked together effectively to support people. People and relatives told us staff were proactive in contacting GPs, district nurses and emergency services when needed. A professional told us, “Staff are approachable and responsive to emails when I have needed to contact them.”

There was a handover system in place to ensure key information was shared between shifts. Staff used an electronic system that allowed messages and updates to be sent to all staff, which helped maintain consistent communication across the team.

Staff supported people to maintain their health and wellbeing. People and relatives told us that staff recognised when additional support was needed and contacted health professionals promptly which helped ensure people received timely and appropriate care.

Health and social care professionals also told us staff contacted them promptly. One professional said, “It’s all about working together to achieve the best outcomes for people.”

Staff monitored people’s care to continuously improve it. They ensured that people’s outcomes were positive and consistent.

The manager explained that activities were organised by people themselves, and we heard about opportunities for social engagement through coffee mornings, gardening, arts and community outings which helped improve people’s wellbeing.

We heard and read examples of how being at the service had improved people’s wellbeing and independence.

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

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. When people receive care and treatment in their own homes an application must be made to the Court of Protection for them to authorise people to be deprived of their liberty.

There were no Court of Protection deprivation of liberty applications in progress or authorised at the time of the assessment. The manager told us that such applications would not be appropriate within this type of service, and if restrictions of this level were required, they would need to review the person’s placement and consider whether a care home setting would be more suitable.

We found that staff sought people’s consent and worked within the principles of the MCA, although some documentation required clearer wording to evidence this. People and relatives described staff as respectful and said staff always asked before providing care. Staff were aware of people’s preferences and communication needs, and they used these to seek consent in day‑to‑day interactions.