Shalom

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 for this service since its registration under a new 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 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 always made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by thoroughly assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People were supported by staff who knew them well and who ensured their complex health needs were supported by appropriate health professionals. Assessments and care plans were detailed and evolved as needed when people’s support needs changed.

One person had experienced a significant change in their needs. The provider ensured they reviewed how they could continue to support them safely and implemented creative change with the layout of the house to facilitate their needs. They ensured this change was undertaken in consultation with all people living in the home and their families. This meant the person was able to continue living in the place they saw as their home.

The registered manager was able to demonstrate that they worked in partnership with family and other professionals to ensure people’s care and treatment was reviewed and amended as needed, this included where a person’s electronic device to manage their epilepsy had started to fail before its battery failure alert had activated. Because the staff recognised the changes in the person and referred them in a timely way to other professionals, the issue was rectified before the person experienced serious harm.

Mental capacity assessments had been completed for people when decisions had to be made relating to their heath needs. These demonstrated people and their families were involved in decision making relating to assessing needs. The assessments were consistently detailed and considered least restrictive options.

Leaders ensured they liaised regularly with relatives. One relative stated they had asked for daily updates from the service which leaders ensured happened.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them and their families, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Staff demonstrated they knew how to support people in all aspects of their daily needs; this was reinforced by families who felt staff knew how to support people well and in line with their needs.

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. Because of the level of need people living at the service, there were several professionals involved in the support of people. These included speech and language therapist, physiotherapist and dieticians. Professionals shared staff and managers were “very engaged” with them and were very helpful.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Staff supported people to all health appointments and ensured people had access to a dentist. Staff escalated appropriately any changes to people’s health and worked closely with a range of professionals to ensure continuity of support.

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. Staff ensured there were detailed records of care provided, for example records of seizure activity to inform clinicians of the impact of treatment. Records demonstrated staff communicated with professionals as needed to ensure people received the treatment they needed.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. We saw staff engaging with people in a collaborative way when providing support to them, discussing what they were going to do and checking people were happy. One family member stated, “they listen and understand [person]” Assessments relating to consent to treatment had been carried out for people when they lacked capacity to make certain decisions. These assessments reflected how the information had been shared and how people’s family had been involved if they could not make a decision. Leaders were aware of the need to make a decision in a person’s best interests and in the least restrictive way. Leaders had applied for the relevant Deprivation Liberty Safeguards authorisations for people.