Select Lifestyles Regent 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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement.

This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to the application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

This service scored 46 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment was effective.

We saw there were assessments completed with people before they started using the service. As these assessments were not always used to develop robust care plans and risk assessments for people, we could not be assured they were always effectively used.

However, people and relatives felt involved with the assessment process and were aware of people’s plans. One relative told us, “Care plan has been seen. A meeting has been held this week, and the care plan has been updated.”

The provider did not always provide up to date guidance in relation to providing a supported living model of care to people to deliver care that mattered to them.

As reported throughout this report, right support, right care, right culture guidance was not always followed and the supported living model outlined in the provider’s statement of purpose was also not always followed. Not delivering an evidence-based model of care meant people did not always receive care and support that met their needs or promoted good health and wellbeing outcomes.

The provider did not evidence that they followed other evidence-based guidance specifically for people with learning disabilities such as the Reach Standards. These are a set of 9 voluntary standards designed to promote person centered support for individuals with learning disabilities and/or autism particularly in a supported living setting.

The provider did not always ensure staff worked well together to meet people’s needs. Leaders at the service did not always ensure they communicated with or deployed staff in an effective manner.

However, staff were able to share examples of how they worked with each other to share information about people. There was a system in place to ensure the staff team worked alongside other professionals when required to deliver care to people.

A relative committed, “Staff all work well together. They are a team.”

The provider supported people to manage their health needs.

Staff were aware of people’s health needs and the support they may need. One staff member said, “We get to know our service users very well and we talk to them and ask how they are. I would tell the manager immediately and if they are hurting, I will check them over and then I could call the GP if I felt it necessary.”

People’s health needs were assessed, and plans were in place to monitor these conditions, where needed. People had access to health professionals when needed including the GP.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it.

We received mixed feedback on people’s outcomes. One relative said, “Staff don’t encourage him to do things.” They also commented, “Concern has been raised asking what they are doing to keep him busy. Another relative told us, “They encourage to help around the home. My relation does their own laundry with supervision. Helps to prepare meals.”

Although reviews were taking place for people they did not always consider how people’s care could be improved, through setting goals for people or considered how outcomes for people were measured.

There were systems in place to ensure people’s needs were identified, assessed and monitored. Staff confirmed they were aware of people’s needs and provided care in line with this.

The provider did not always work within the principles of The Mental Capacity Act 2005.

There were some capacity assessments in place for people when needed, however, these had not always considered all relevant aspects of people’s care. For example, the provider had not considered how some people’s medicines and finances were stored and whether the systems used were in people’s best interests.

Leaders were unable to fully demonstrate they understood the process to follow and spoke about other professionals taking the lead in this area, which was documented in some people’s capacity assessments. This was not in line with how capacity assessments should be completed.

There was not always evidence to show how decisions had been made in people’s best interests.

However, staff had received training in this area and were aware of the day-to-day processes to follow, including how to gain consent from people.