Scodef Care

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 inspection for this 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 58 (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 inconsistently assessed people’s needs at the start of their care and involved people and relatives in the process.People told us staff discussed their routines and preferences with them, such as 1 relative commenting, “They [staff] went through it with my son but I was present.” However, assessments were not always consistently updated when people’s needs changed. For example, staff supported people with nutrition or toileting, but this was not always fully reflected in their care plans or risk assessments. Despite this, staff generally understood people’s needs well from daily communication and used this to provide effective support.

Staff delivered care in line with people’s assessed needs and used appropriate techniques to support nutrition, hydration and mobility. People told us staff understood their routines well and promoted dignity and privacy. A relative commented that staff were, “very good in the mornings and always come on time.” However, evidence based guidance was not always embedded in documentation. For example, some care plans lacked step-by-step guidance for safe hoisting, risk management around modified diets, and consistent instructions for enteral[tube]feeding. Following the inspectors feedback during the site visit, the provider updated children’s records to ensure only relevant up-to-date information remained and there was guidance in place for the child’s current support needs. Daily records showed staff followed safe practices and responded appropriately to people’s changing presentations.

Staff worked collaboratively with families and other professionals, such as district nurses,GPs and social workers. People confirmed staff communicated well, sharing updates and contacting relatives when required. A person told us, “They [staff ]always listen and support us.” Staff described positive relationships and said teamwork was strong. However, gaps in record keeping and inconsistent updates meant information shared between staff was not always as clear or comprehensive as needed to support fully integrated working.

People were supported to maintain healthier lifestyles in ways that were meaningful to them. Staff encouraged independence, enabled people to access the community, and supported them with routines and hobbies. For example, attending church, engaging in activities or supporting children with autism to explore their environment safely. Staff monitored people’s hydration and nutrition, offering drinks and documenting intake. People told us staff encouraged them to stay active where possible. This meant people experienced support that improved wellbeing.

The provider monitored outcomes through monthly audits, daily observations, and feedback from people and relatives. Staff were able to describe improvements in people’s wellbeing, such as increased mobility, reduced isolation and improved engagement from children supported by the service. One staff member said,“[People are]more engaged and communicating better; they seem happier overall.However, inconsistent care records and documentation left monitoring positive outcomes for people had not been completed.

Staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People told us staff.sought consent before providing care, with 1 person saying staff,“don’t do anything without asking.” Staff described supporting people to make choices and involving families where people lacked capacity. Records showed mental capacity assessments had been completed for people who required these, and staff received training in MCA and best interest decision-making. People confirmed staff communicated in ways that suited them, including use of gestures, pictures and communication boards. This meant people were supported to express choices and have their rights promoted.