Blessing's 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (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 because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed before care commenced. People, relatives and relevant professionals were involved in the assessment and review process. Relatives confirmed pre admission assessments were completed to determine whether the provider could meet people's needs. Staff understood how to report changes in need to ensure care was reviewed and referrals made when required.

However, care records were not always clear, accurate or consistent. Some care plans contained conflicting information and did not always clearly distinguish between historical information and current support needs. The provider had identified these issues and implemented improvements to care planning processes and staff training. These changes were recent and had not yet been fully embedded at the time of inspection.

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 and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People received care and treatment that reflected their individual needs, preferences and what was important to them. People and, where appropriate, their relatives were involved in planning and reviewing care.

Staff completed training relevant to their roles and demonstrated an understanding of the provider's policies, procedures and values. Systems were in place to support staff to maintain and develop their knowledge and skills.

The registered manager had identified further development was required to improve the quality of care plan recording and had sourced additional training for staff.

Staff, teams and services did not always work together effectively to ensure people received coordinated, consistent and person centred care.

Care records and associated documentation were not always accurate, consistent or up to date. While this had not resulted in harm, it reduced assurance that staff had access to reliable information to support coordinated care. Records reviewed showed people continued to receive support from consistent and familiar staff. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's needs and preferences, which helped reduce the risk of poor outcomes.

Staff were able to describe appropriate escalation processes and had access to digital records and on call support, however, the inconsistencies previously highlighted in record keeping and information sharing increased the risk of inconsistent care delivery and reduced assurance that people’s needs would be met in a coordinated way.

We discussed these findings with the provider, who took immediate action to address the concerns raised.

People were supported to manage their health and wellbeing and maintain their independence, choice and control.

Staff monitored people’s health and responded appropriately when concerns or changes in needs were identified. Records demonstrated concerns were escalated promptly to relevant health and social care professionals and advice was acted upon.

Care plans included information about people’s health needs and the support required to maintain their wellbeing. Staff supported people to access healthcare services, attend appointments and receive specialist input when needed.

The provider routinely monitored the quality of care and treatment to help drive continuous improvement and ensure support remained effective.

Feedback was regularly sought from people, relatives and professionals and used to inform service development and quality assurance activity. Audit findings, feedback and learning were discussed through governance processes and team meetings to identify areas for improvement and monitor progress.

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

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of consent and the Mental Capacity Act. They described how they supported people to make their own decisions by offering choices, providing information in ways people could understand and allowing time for decisions to be made. Staff understood people had the right to make unwise decisions and the importance of ensuring people understood any associated risks.

Care plans included signed consent records and information about people's communication needs. Assessment processes considered consent, decision making and legal arrangements, including Lasting Power of Attorney where applicable. This helped ensure decisions were made in line with people's wishes, rights and relevant legislation.