The Light House

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 inspection 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.

This service scored 79 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

There was a process for assessing needs before people started to use the service.

People and relatives contributed to assessments. One relative told us, “I was involved before [name of person] moved in. I went to see it with [name of person] and they showed us around, we saw the facilities and were introduced to the key worker; the initial introduction was very good, it was all laid out what to expect.”

The service 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.

Staff delivered care and support in line with professional guidance and people’s assessed needs. Care plans were personalised and detailed across areas such as health, mental health, communication and emotional support.

Staff received regular training to make sure their practice was in accordance with up-to-date best practice guidelines and legislation.

Staff promoted healthy eating. People were involved in planning and preparing their meals. One person told us, “We all get a choice who wants what. I buy my own food, we all do our own shopping, staff don’t choose for us. Staff help with shopping and cooking, they tell me when I’m running low, they are very good I can’t fault them.” One relative raised a concern about the healthiness of their family members meals. The service had made progress with this, and the persons care plan identified they were making ‘some progress with eating home cooked meals’.

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 well together and with external professionals to meet people’s needs. Staff communicated effectively through handovers, daily notes and team meetings, ensuring all relevant information was shared promptly.

Most relatives said communication was positive and responsive, and people told us staff worked together to support them well. One relative raised a concern about contact and follow‑up, and the manager was taking steps to address this. Staff morale was strong, and they described supportive leadership and good teamwork.

Professionals commented positively about how the service worked with them. One professional told us, “I have worked closely with the current team and can honestly say they are supportive, they communicate well and are a pleasure to work with.”

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.

People were supported to access the healthcare they required. Records showed regular involvement from GPs, psychiatrists, occupational therapist, diabetes nurses and mental health practitioners.

Staff supported people to make healthier choices and build independence. People accessed meaningful activities such as swimming, volunteering, Tai Chi, art groups and local events, helping them stay active and socially engaged.

People told us staff encouraged them to stay well and involved. Staff also helped people access community wellbeing groups. Where health needs increased, staff sought appropriate professional advice. One staff member had received a provider award for integrity; this was for their efforts to build relationships with people and bringing fresh ideas. The nomination stated this was related to, “[Name of staff members] commitment to learning and never giving up in relation to supporting people and perusing outcomes with their health and well-being.”

The service monitored all people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they fully met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People achieved meaningful outcomes. For example, 1 person was being supported to progress through qualifications with structured staff support. The person told us “[Name of staff member] is brilliant, I’m doing a course [name of staff] is helping me, I can’t rate the staff highly enough.” Another person told us how they had been supported by staff to achieve a volunteering job.

One relative told us, “This is the first time [Name of relative] has stayed out of hospital, it’s been 2 years now. [Name of persons] self-care is brilliant; they have gone back to cooking; they [staff] have kept [name of person] really good.”

People had regular person‑centred reviews that identified progress, needs and goals. Records showed clear improvements for example, increased independence, new qualifications and greater confidence.

Staff recognised when people needed additional support and worked with professionals to ensure positive outcomes. A staff member had received a provider award for integrity; this was for them not being afraid to ask questions and never giving up.

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

Staff consistently sought consent and supported people’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). MCAs and best interest processes were completed when necessary. Staff had supported 1 person around their capacity to make a specific decision using creative video animations and the person’s preferred music.

There was some conflicting information in 1 person’s care plan around their capacity to consent to a specific decision. We discussed this with the registered manager who was planning on carrying out another capacity assessment.

Staff described how they supported people’s right to make unwise decisions while respecting autonomy, and they used the least restrictive options in line with MCA principles. Consent forms for medicines, care and information sharing were in place. People told us they made decisions about their daily lives. One person told us, “I am not restricted to anything, I can do what I want.”