West Hampshire DCA

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 67 (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.

Although no new people had recently moved into the service, systems and processes were clearly in place to support effective assessment. These included comprehensive initial and post-admission assessment forms, risk screening tools, and a complexity of needs assessment. These tools enabled staff to evaluate a person’s physical health, mental wellbeing, communication needs, and overall level of support. This demonstrated the provider had a structured approach in place to ensure people’s needs would be identified, understood and reviewed appropriately should somebody move in.

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.

The service worked proactively with external professionals, including Dieticians and Occupational Therapists (OT) to ensure that care was tailored to individual’s needs. Staff had access to best practice guidance about how to support people.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people.

Staff described communication as effective and consistent, supported by systems such as communication books, emails, handovers and whiteboards. One staff member told us communication was “fairly good” with “regular reminders sent out,” while another described it as “brilliant,” highlighting how staff share information during shifts. This supported continuity of care and ensured important information was effectively communicated.

One professional told us, “I think they are responsive and willing to work collaboratively.”

Relatives also provided positive feedback about communication, with 1 stating, “Communication overall is effective,” and another saying, “Staff talk to us, it’s effective and there is regular communication.” They described being kept informed through calls, messages and meetings, supporting partnership working.

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 appropriate healthcare services, including attending annual health checks and routine appointments to monitor their wellbeing. Staff encouraged healthier lifestyle choices, offering advice on nutrition and supporting people to shop for and prepare healthier food options.

There was evidence of positive outcomes from this support. For example, recent blood test results showed that 1 person no longer had diabetes, demonstrating the impact of consistent health monitoring and lifestyle support. Overall, staff promoted good health and wellbeing in a way that supported people’s independence and long-term outcomes whilst offering choice.

The provider did not consistently monitor people’s care and treatment in a way that supported continuous improvement, nor did they always ensure that outcomes were clearly recorded.

Outcomes within support plans were present and supported by detailed guidance for staff; however, they were often broad, generic and not clearly personalised. This meant it was not always clear what people wanted to achieve or how progress and success would be measured, limiting the effectiveness of outcome-focused, person-centred care. For example, in a support plan relating to food and drink preparation, the stated outcome was ‘promoting as much independence as possible to learn new skills,’ which was not specific to the person or clearly measurable.

In addition, although there was clear evidence that people were supported to take part in a range of activities and holidays, these were not consistently reflected as outcomes within care planning. This meant opportunities to formally recognise what was important to people, track progress, and review whether these activities continued to meet their preferences and goals could be missed. As a result, systems did not fully support effective monitoring, review, or continuous improvement in line with people’s individual outcomes.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

Although Mental Capacity Assessments (MCAs) were in place, these were not always robust. A number of assessments relating to individual people had been completed on the same date and at the same time, raising concerns about whether decision-specific capacity had been fully considered. Some records also contained contradictory information regarding whether individuals had capacity, and in some cases, there was limited detail about the conversations undertaken to assess capacity.

Mental Capacity Assessments and Best Interest decisions, where outcomes relating to areas such as medication, finances, nutrition and hydration were not sufficiently specific to each individual decision. Records consistently stated, “to give full support in all aspects of their tenancy,” which did not clearly demonstrate that decisions were made on a decision-specific basis or reflected the person’s needs, risks and circumstances for the particular decision being assessed.

In another instance, an MCA relating to personal care noted that a best interest decision was “in process of being booked with parents, while waiting on a social worker to be assigned.” This remained outstanding at the time of inspection in June and had not progressed since February 2026. The provider could not always evidence that all relevant stakeholders had been consulted as part of the best interest’s decision-making process.

These findings indicated that, while systems were in place, further work was needed to ensure assessments and decisions consistently reflected the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and supported clear, person-centred decision-making.