Ladden View

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 service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 79 (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.

People's needs were assessed before they moved into the service to make sure these needs could be met. Assessments included information about people’s background, likes and dislikes, and as well as needs relating to areas such as culture, religion and identity. Recognised assessment tools were used to ensure people’s needs were clearly described so these would be understood by staff.

Relatives told us they were involved in initial assessments as well as in ongoing reviews of care and support needs. They were confident their family member’s needs were fully assessed and could be met by staff. A relative told us, “We formulated a really good care plan when she moved in and it’s been reviewed 3 or 4 times since."

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation. They worked to develop evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff used relevant clinical tools to monitor and review people’s needs. For example, assessments of nutritional needs and pressure sore risks. When there were concerns about a person’s health, the Restore2 tool was used consistently to support staff in recognising physical deterioration and communicating concerns. This helped ensure people received the treatment they needed promptly.

Staff were proud of how well they met people’s nutritional and hydration needs. Food was prepared at the service using fresh ingredients and professional knowledge to provide food which was nutritious and met people’s individual needs. For example, ice cream was made at the service using high quality ingredients to enrich nutritional intake, squash was enhanced with additional vitamins, and people were able to choose the items they wanted in individual snack baskets in their rooms.

At mealtimes, people were supported to remain as independent as possible and their preferences and choices were respected. For example, some people chose to have wine with their meal, and adapted tableware promoted other people’s dignity. Staff showed people a choice of 2 plated meals. This supported people to make informed decisions. If people did not want the meal options offered, alternatives were available. People and relatives were regularly asked for feedback and suggestions about the food provided, and comments were positive. Relatives told us they were invited to taste the food and give feedback and one said, “The food is amazing. The chef knows their likes and dislikes and asks [Name] for feedback.”

Staff received training in food safety, safe swallowing and diabetes care to ensure they understood how to meet people’s needs in line with best practice.

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 requested support from health and social care professionals to help meet people's needs in a timely way. This included GP, district nurses, occupational therapists and social workers. A professional told us staff were open and proactive and worked in partnership with others to ensure people’s needs were met.

Most staff told us they felt supported and were confident seeking advice from senior staff and healthcare professionals when needed. However, some staff said communication within the staff team had been less effective at times. Staff feedback indicated this had improved recently, with most describing communication as more consistent and effective.

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 supported to access external health professionals and staff encouraged them to live healthier lives, whilst respecting their choices. Records showed people accessed services such as dentists, chiropodists and hospital specialists. Advice and recommendations were incorporated into care plans and followed by staff. This helped staff understand people’s needs and respond to changes to meet their needs.

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.

Relevant clinical tools were used to assess people’s health and wellbeing, and routine checks were also completed to identify changes or emerging concerns. Referrals were made to other professionals when support was needed to maintain people’s health and wellbeing. For example, seeking advice when a person had an increase in falls, or guidance when a person’s dementia-related symptoms worsened. Information about changes in people's needs was shared during shift handovers and reflected in care records to help ensure staff provided consistent support.

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

People were involved in decisions about their care and support wherever possible. Care records included information about people’s preferences, routines and how staff could best support them to make choices. Staff told us they gave people time and presented information clearly and in different ways.

Staff received training in the Mental Capacity Act and we saw the principles reflected in practice. For example, staff asked people what they wanted to do, where they wanted to go, and obtained consent before supporting them.

Some people did not have capacity to make specific decisions, such as about their finances or medicines. When necessary, capacity assessments had been completed in line with legislation and decisions were made in the person’s best interests. These were thorough and personalised and relatives or professionals were involved in the process as required.