Birkdale Court

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.

This service scored 54 (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 were effective.

Care plans did not always contain enough detail to ensure people received effective care and treatment. We found people living with a range of health conditions such as hypertension and diabetes did not have the appropriate health care plans in place. This meant staff did not have clear information to support them in identifying and responding to potential risks in a timely and consistent way.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

Information in people’s care plans varied did not always consider national legislation and evidence-based good practice. For example, where people had specific healthcare needs such as diabetes, it did not reflect relevant guidelines. However, throughout our observations, it was evident that staff had a good understanding of people’s needs. Staff members were meaningfully engaging with supporting people through activity, conversation or supporting them when needed, ensuring that people felt supported and valued.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services.

Conflicting information in people’s care records created a risk of unsafe care, especially if they needed to move between services. We found one example where a person’s hospital passport stated said they did not have a Respect form in place; however, they did have one in place. Health information was not on people’s hospital passports such as if they had a catheter. Therefore, if the person needed to go to another service, such as a hospital, this could have led to delays or incorrect actions, placing the person and staff at risk.

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 for example, the provider was able to highlight the support they provided to people and they were able to reduce the use of as and when medication which was used to support people when they were agitated. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s care and support needs. People were supported to access healthcare partners to monitor and promote their 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.

Care plans and risk assessments identified people’s known and emerging healthcare needs; however, these were not always effectively monitored. This created a risk that changes in health would not be recognised or escalated appropriately. We found one person was required to be weighed weekly however this person was only weighed monthly. Therefore, any health changes may not have been noticed. We discussed this with the management team during the inspection, and they told us they would review and address the issue.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. People’s rights around consent were not consistently upheld. Records showed that mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had not always been completed where required. Where assessments were in place, they were not always decision-specific, person-centred, or signed by the relevant parties. As a result, it was not always clear which decisions people were able to make for themselves.

The quality of information used to inform assessments varied, and records did not always clearly demonstrate how conclusions about people’s mental capacity had been reached. This meant there was insufficient assurance that decisions were being made in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

We raised these concerns with the provider, who told us they would undertake a review of all mental capacity assessments to ensure they were completed appropriately and accurately reflected people’s rights, choices, and decision-making abilities.