East 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.

At our last assessment 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 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.

The service had systems in place to ensure people’s needs were assessed before they were supported by the service. Initial assessments contained detailed information about each person’s history, diagnosis, aspirations and support needs, which supported the development of personalised and meaningful care and support plans. Staff told us the manager took responsibility for writing and updating care plans, incorporating any changes identified through discussions with the team. Updated care and support plans were shared with all staff to ensure consistent practice. Staff also explained the manager worked alongside keyworkers, family members and professionals during reviews to ensure care plans remained reflective of current needs. The manager told us they held reviews with social workers and invited staff to participate. Care plans and risk assessments were adapted based on feedback from professionals, advocates and people themselves where possible. We also saw the environment had been adapted in response to assessed needs. For example, bathrooms had been modified to support people’s changing mobility and care requirements.

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 Speech and Language Therapy (SaLT) and Occupational Therapists (OT) to ensure 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, managers and professionals worked well together to coordinate care. One staff member told us “Yes, we communicate together. You can’t function without good communication; we can also make phone calls to others if there is an emergency”.

A professional told us “I have no concerns regarding the service provided, or the client’s wellbeing. The client appears settled, and the home environment remains suitable”.

Relatives gave mixed feedback about information sharing, one said “The staff will email or call me about any decisions or changes that need to be made. I am usually asked how I can be involved in the most appropriate way - a meeting, phone call, discussion etc”. Another relative commented “They really tend to get on with things. They don’t tend to reach out”.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing effectively. Staff encouraged and enabled individuals to live healthier lives through regular health monitoring, timely access to healthcare professionals, and the consistent promotion of healthy lifestyle choices.

For example, two people chose to join a local slimming group to support their goals, one for their general wellbeing and one due to a specific health need. Staff supported them with meal planning and encouraged healthier food choices.

Any health concerns were promptly discussed with the GP, and outcomes were communicated to the whole staff team to ensure consistent support. Staff adapted approaches where needed to ensure the people received the care they needed. For example, where appropriate, GP home visits were arranged to help reduce anxiety and ensure people continued to access medical care comfortably and safely.

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.

Keyworker meetings were held, however the reviews from September to November 2025 did not include how people were supported to participate in decision‑making, and there was limited focus on promoting activities, skill development, wellbeing or independence. There was also no continuity between reviews, and actions or issues identified in previous months were not consistently followed up.

This reduced the service’s ability to ensure care remains responsive, person‑centred and outcome‑focused.

The registered manager told us they planned to provide keyworkers with “needs, wants and wishes books” to support a more structured and person‑centred keyworker review process.

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

Staff did not always follow the correct procedures for seeking and recording informed consent in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Records did not consistently show how people had been supported to understand and agree to their care. Mental capacity assessments had been completed for some people, but not for all restrictive practices in place, such as locked fridges. There was also no MCA assessment or best-interest decision recorded in relation to a person moving to a ground floor flat. This meant not all decisions had been assessed, and decisions made on behalf of people lacking capacity were not clearly recorded as being in their best interests. However, we did observe staff appropriately seeking consent when carrying out day‑to‑day care tasks, which demonstrated respectful and person‑centred practice.