Atholl 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 assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. 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.

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 provider had comprehensive and personalised assessments in place, including health action plans, hospital passports, eating and drinking plans, mobility and falls risk assessments, medicines risk assessments and PEEPs, which reflected people’s current needs and circumstances. The provider identified and recorded people’s communication needs clearly, with accessible formats, preferred‑language materials and communication guidance used to support meaningful involvement of people with learning disabilities in their own assessments and reviews. This enabled the provider to plan care and support around people’s individual needs and living environments, using effective communication to involve people in decisions. Staff delivered appropriate care.

In response to whether staff know the person well and understand their needs a relative said, “Definitely yes.”

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 provider delivered care and support in line with people’s preferences, communication needs and desired outcomes. Staff followed appropriate application of the Mental Capacity Act, consent processes, and safeguarding principles. Staff supported people in line with evidence‑based interventions such as speech and language therapy informed eating and drinking plans, falls management and health action planning. This helped ensure care was lawful, person‑centred and based on recognised good practice, supporting people to receive safe and effective care that met their individual needs and promoted their wellbeing.

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.

The provider shared relevant information with health and social care professionals, including assessments and care records, to support people’s needs during changes such as hospital admissions. Where people had needs outside the provider’s direct remit, such as health, safeguarding or environmental concerns, staff adapted their support and worked with healthcare professionals, families and housing partners to maintain continuity and safety. This helped ensure people experienced coordinated care, reduced the need for people to repeatedly explain their needs, and supported smoother transitions between services when circumstances changed.

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.

The provider supported people with their physical and emotional health through health and nutrition plans, hospital passports, medicines and monitoring of long‑term conditions, with adjustments made when people’s needs changed. Staff recognised changes in people’s presentation, distress or wellbeing and responded by providing reassurance, adapting support and escalating concerns where required. The provider made reasonable adjustments such as accessible communication and preferred‑language materials to support people with learning disabilities to attend and engage with planned and unplanned healthcare. This helped people maintain their health and wellbeing, access healthcare in ways that met their individual needs, and remain as independent and involved as possible in managing their own health.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The provider demonstrated that positive outcomes were achievable, with individual examples showing improvements in people’s independence, wellbeing, communication and engagement in community life, particularly for people with learning disabilities.

However, outcome monitoring was not consistently routine or systematic across the service, and there was limited evidence that people’s outcomes were clearly defined, reviewed over time or used to inform service‑wide improvement. For example, the provider reviewed individual concerns and complaints but did not consistently analyse recurring themes or demonstrate how outcomes improved across the service. Communication issues and delays were identified, but there was limited evidence that these were routinely monitored over time or led to sustained improvements in people’s experiences. As a result, while some people experienced positive and meaningful outcomes, the provider could not consistently demonstrate that outcomes were monitored effectively or used to drive continuous improvement and equitable experiences for all people using the service.

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

The provider discussed and recorded consent within care plans and support documentation. Staff asked people if they gave consent for care and treatment, with clear records showing where people were able to give or withhold consent. Where people had learning disabilities or communication needs, the provider used accessible information, easy‑read formats, preferred‑language materials, and communication guidance to support understanding. The registered manager completed mental capacity act assessments and best‑interest decisions where people lacked capacity. This ensured care and treatment were delivered lawfully and respectfully, with people’s choices recognised and upheld and appropriate safeguards in place where people were unable to give consent themselves.

A relative told us, “[Staff] work within the care plan.