16 King Street Also known as O2 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 the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

The service was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

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 needs to make sure people’s care and treatment plans clearly reflect their individual health, wellbeing and communication needs and demonstrates that these are planned with them.

We reviewed the care and support plans in place. Information within the plans and risk assessment provided details of people’s individual need. However, these could be personalised further, capturing the individual’s views of people and those important to them.

We found generic statements had been made in the plans review, rather than being specific to each person. Whilst goals had been identified there was no plan in place to show how this was to be achieved. Care plans and risk assessment did not fully reflect the incidents between people living at the service. Without clear and accurate records people may not be supported in a way they want and need.

We were told new care planning documentation was being explored to ensure more personalised plans were developed with people’s involvement.

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

People living at King Street were subject to restrictions due to potential risks. Records identified peoples wish to be supported in a less restrictive way. However, plans to support this were not in place.

We were told the social worker for one person was to provide a positive behavioural support plan. However, as the care provider, the ‘Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) framework’ should be explored by the staff team, along with relevant training. This will support staff in delivering evidence-based strategies to improve the quality of life for people with learning disability or who are autistic, promoting positive behaviours and reducing the need for restrictive practice.

Consideration should also be given to the Oliver McGowan code of practice. This outlines the requirement for training on learning disability and autism ensuring staff receive high quality and appropriate training.

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.

Staff worked with a range of health and social care professionals in supporting people to meet their individual needs. People were registered with a local GP and were supported by mental health professionals and probation, where appropriate.

Each person had a hospital passport. These passports improved communication between services and ensured care provided was safe, and reflective of people’s individual needs.

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.

Staff told us people were supported to make healthy choices including maintaining a balanced diet. We were told people would be encouraged to cook meals and would ‘sometimes’ go shopping with staff. However, a review of daily records showed meal arrangements were adhoc and one person, due to tensions within the home, spent their time visiting family throughout the daytime, eating snacks or takeaways during the evenings.

One person preferred to attend health appointments independent of staff. However, people told us staff supported them to access healthcare and attend medical appointments, where necessary. Professionals provided positive feedback about the support offered to people. One healthcare professional told us the person worked with has, “Expressed feeling more comfortable and is now more likely to seek support from staff when they feel at risk.”

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

The manager was supported by senior staff in the day to day running of the service. The service had only been providing support to people for approximately 6 months and was still developing and embedding systems based on the needs of the service, helping to monitor and improve outcomes and the experiences of people.

As the service was small, opportunities were available for people and staff to share information and ideas.

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

Care records were to be developed to better evidence people’s involvement and consent to their care and support. People were encouraged to make decisions for themselves. Where necessary they would be supported by family or advocate, where appropriate, should they need help when making specific decisions.

Staff were aware of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and confirmed they had attended relevant training.