Our 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.

There were systems to assess people’s needs before they moved in and care plans were developed to enable staff to provide individualised care. People’s independence was encouraged and staff worked with health professionals to ensure people’s needs were met.

Staff sought people’s consent before providing support and the registered manager understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act.

This service scored 75 (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 processes for assessing and identifying people’s needs before they moved into the service. People were encouraged to visit the service to meet staff and other residents before they moved in and relatives told us, “We were pleased when the placement came up, [My relative] visited at the weekend [before deciding to move in]”.

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

People’s care plans were up to date and designed to ensure people received personalised care. Where people’s needs had changed care plans had been updated and commissioners informed of these changes. However, requests for reviews of care needs and for additional funding when people’s support needs increased had not been promptly assessed by the local authority. This was limiting the support the service was able to provide when significant changes in needs occurred.

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 service worked in collaboration with health professionals to ensure people’s care needs were met. Records demonstrated people had accessed GP’s, dentists and specialist nursing teams as required and that advice received had been acted upon. The service was working with the GP to support one person to access a weight loss service which was positively impacting on both the person’s health and their anxieties.

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 able to access the kitchen when they wished to make snacks and drinks.

Staff had recently completed additional training in active support and were focused on encouraging people to do things for themselves. Staff told us, “People are now engaged with making snacks and doing things for themselves”.

The service was in a remote location and only one person had access to their own car. The service’s minibus had broken down and the only transport available to support community engagement was via staff cars with appropriate insurance. Following this inspection a new 7-seater minibus was purchased to improve people’s access to the community and local attractions. Increasing people’s opportunities to go out and take part in meaningful activities can have a positive impact on well-being and mental health.

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

Relatives told us people were doing well at Our House and there had been a decrease in the number of incidents occurring within the service. One relative commented, “The staff are all really good with [my relative]. There are boundaries but these are fine. It is good that they tell [my relative]”. Staff encouraged and supported people to do as much as possible for themselves and provided appropriate support, encouragement and praise when people were struggling to achieve their goals. Staff said, “We have had a little bit of training, on occupational aids and how we can support independence. How we can help [people] in the morning, how we can encourage people to do things for themselves”.

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

Staff sought consent before providing support and encouraged people to do things for themselves. People controlled how and when care was provided and staff respected choices while gently encouraging people to accept assistance when needed.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. Where people lack the mental capacity to make particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

The provider ensured people’s rights and liberty were protected. Where individuals lacked the capacity to make specific decisions these decisions had been made in their best interests with engagement from relatives and professionals.

Appropriate applications had been made to the local authority for the authorisation of potentially restrictive care plans and an advocate was visiting the service during the second day of the inspection as part of these processes.