South Street

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 the service under this provider. This key question has been rated 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 their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

We were told by relatives they had been involved in the care planning process during the transition of people moving to the service and that this was a positive experience, with 1 relative telling us, “I have no problems, the transition was good.”

Assessments considered most people’s health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs to enable them to receive care or treatment that had good outcomes. For example, while behaviour care plans did not always contain relevant information regarding people’s needs, we viewed that people’s health emotional, physical and communication health needs had been assessed and documented in care plans and risk assessments. This enabled staff to be aware of and understand why and how people required support with their health conditions.

We also saw that staff understood people’s assessed needs. For example, we saw some staff communicating with people in ways which supported them to regulate their emotions and be able to engage with others in a positive way.

Relatives also told us staff were effective at supporting people to meet their needs, with 1 relative saying, “They are very good; they work hard and support people well.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment based what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with best practice standards.

There was evidence that the ‘Right support, right care and right culture’ guidance was delivered by the service. For example, we observed that the model of care and size and layout of the service promoted people being able to exercise control and independence in how and where they chose to spend their days. The service was also well-located in a community with easy-to-access amenities, which people accessed and engaged with on a regular basis.

We also observed records and staff made clear reference to people’s health needs and how these needed to be met. The care plans of 1 person documented the involvement they received from external professionals regarding their mental health needs. When we spoke with staff, they told us how this support helps meet the person’s changing needs, and the person’s care records reflected this information also.

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

Staff members told us there was effective communication both internally within the service and externally with other partners, such as with health professionals, with 1 staff member saying, “We work closely with others involved in people’s care.” We observed staff had access to information they needed to appropriately assess, plan and deliver people’s care, treatment and support. Partners told us there were no concerns with how the service communicated and worked with them and we saw staff meetings were used by leaders to ensure there was effective communication and coordination within their own team. This meant we were assured the service operated in a way which enabled them to plan and deliver people’s care and support.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing.

Staff told us they supported people with a range of physical and mental health needs, as well as emotional needs. Staff told us they supported people to manage their health and wellbeing by having a good understanding of their needs and having a commitment to people experiencing good outcomes. Staff said, “We ensure we follow guidance [regarding a person] and that they are always supported to their appointments.”

We viewed people’s health care records and saw these records supported staff feedback, and this was further supported by a relative who told us the home kept them well-informed with health appointments and the person’s health needs. A relative told us, “Staff keep me involved in any of [person’s] needs - no problems with that.”

This meant we were assured people were supported to manage their health and wellbeing.

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

We found not all people’s care plans and risk assessments contained accurate and updated information. We viewed a person’s behaviour care plan and risk assessment which did not contain accurate information on their needs and potential harmful conduct. Their care plan had not been updated following them acting aggressively and harming other people living at the service. This meant staff did not have clear guidance to ensure risks could be reassessed and mitigated, this exposed people to the risk of harm.

However, other information we viewed in people’s care plans and risk assessments was subject to effective reviews and did reflect people’s current care. Furthermore, people had care plans and risk assessments which documented how they could be supported to achieve positive outcomes.

Staff confirmed they were aware of people’s assessed needs and how they delivered support in line with this to promote improvements with people’s outcomes. One staff member told us, “When [person] first came to us, their mobility was not always good. However, since they started receiving physiotherapy support and the support we provide, the person’s mobility has improved.”

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

Records showed that mental capacity assessments were carried out and these were being reviewed on a regular basis. Furthermore, people told us staff sought their consent regarding their care, with 1 person telling us, “They don’t make me do things; they ask me how I want things done.”

This was supported by our observations, which included seeing people being asked if they wanted support with their medicines, and staff feedback. Staff displayed a good awareness of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and how they apply this to people they support, with staff telling us, “consent is always sought from people. In situations where people may lack capacity to consent to care, we still talk with people regarding the situation and explain things to people.”

The provider also told us staff encouraged people on a daily basis to exercise choice, and training records we viewed showed staff had received MCA training.