244 Wootton Road

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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.

Care plans and risk assessments had been updated and the service now used a digital care planning system which was accessible to staff within the home. The service had implemented a QR code for people to be able to provide feedback, and feedback had been sought from relatives. We received positive feedback from relatives, 1 relative said, “[staff] will call me and let me know what happens, [they] had an appointment recently and they called me to tell me how [they] got on, they keep us well informed.”

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 were encouraged and supported to be as involved as possible with their care and treatment, this included choosing their own meals and activities planning. Care plans viewed included person-centred information. Daily notes viewed also included if people had received a texture modified diet.

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 collaboratively with health and social care professionals. People had detailed hospital passports in place which provided important information in the event they needed to attend hospital in an emergency.

We found that referrals had been made to different health professionals such as the Speech and Language Therapists (SALT).

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. We observed that people were offered a range of choices for their meals and that staff supported and encouraged people with their decisions. People were encouraged to access the community. We received positive feedback from relatives, 1 person said, “since [they] have moved [here], [they] seem a lot happier and [their] behaviours have reduced.”

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and

consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. The service used clinical tools such as weight logs, food and fluid charts and behavioural monitoring charts although we found concerns regarding the monitoring of fluid intake records. 1 person’s care plan included that a fluid chart should be in place as they were at risk of dehydration, however upon review of daily care records we could not see this had been completed. This was raised with the deputy manager during the inspection and actions were taken to address this.

We found other records had been completed to a higher standard.

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

We found that the service had made significant improvements regarding mental capacity assessments and consent since our last inspection. Mental capacity assessments had been completed for decisions as required. Mental capacity assessments had been reviewed and included details of discussions that had taken place and people’s responses. Where required, people had Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs) in place.