Renai Support Services

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 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 peoples' care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. This was completed in line with the principles of ‘Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture’ best practice guidance.

Before anyone was supported by the service, a pre-admission assessment was completed. This ensured the service could meet the person’s needs and that staff had the necessary information to provide appropriate care.

Prospective tenants were invited for meals and overnight stays, helping to confirm compatibility and promote positive relationships before moving in. Staff confirmed, “Generally we have enough information [to support new people] and all their likes and dislikes. Usually, they have come to visit once or twice to see if they are comfortable, and if all the rest of the residents are happy. They come for a meal and sit down with us.”

Care plans were developed and regularly reviewed with people and, where appropriate, their advocates or families.

The provider planned and delivered peoples' 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.

Staff knew people well and worked with them to ensure they were delivering care that met their needs. We observed that staff listened to people and used communication techniques that suited the person they were supporting.

Staff spoke of being patient and allowing people the time they needed to complete tasks themselves with support, rather than doing things for them. One member of staff explained, “People are all very much involved in the preparation of the meals. One individual we assist her with hand on hand, to ensure she feels involved and another person who is independent who loves to get involved in the cooking. We prompt the others to see if they want to get involved…If they would like support we are there, but we want them to be as independent as possible with it so we may use hand on hand a lot if they need that to make them feel more independent.”

Peoples' nutrition and hydration needs were assessed and met in line with current guidance. Referrals were made to external health professionals if required.

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.

The service worked in partnership with other agencies to meet people’s health and social care needs. One external professional confirmed, “Yes, the staff are proactive and respond well when asked questions about care, etc. Senior staff have been prompt at asking for advice around the care and support needs for my client. They follow guidance and keep me informed of the outcome.”

Effective systems were in place for information sharing and communication across the staff team, including handovers, team meetings, and a communication book.

Relatives reported the service kept them informed about the wellbeing of their family member. Comments included, “We have good communication with the service. We have a secure ‘What’s App’ group with key members of staff, which really helps. It goes both ways and means we don’t have to wait to discuss issues. Everybody knows what’s happening. We also have access to daily records. Everything is on an online system we have access to, so we can look and see what she has been doing.”

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 actively supported to manage their health and wellbeing, including attending medical appointments and accessing input from a range of multi-disciplinary professionals. The service reported strong working relationships with local GPs and pharmacies, collaborating effectively to meet the health needs of the people they were supporting.

People were encouraged to maintain both their physical and mental health through meaningful involvement in community activities, healthy eating and lifestyle choices. Staff promoted inclusion and supported people to participate in activities that enhanced wellbeing.

Several staff members had supported individuals for many years and were able to identify subtle changes in their physical or mental health. This enabled timely intervention and access to specialist support. For example, some people were diagnosed with dementia, following prompt referrals when staff noticed signs of forgetfulness.

The provider routinely monitored peoples' 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.

People were supported to identify and work towards their personal goals. Staff promoted independence and encouraged individuals to work towards their aspirations. One person shared how much they enjoyed working with animals and plants at a local agricultural college.

A staff member told us, “I think they promote independence. If the residents want to achieve something, like if a resident said they want to go on holiday to Spain, they will always try and make it happen.”

Staff and family members described how people had ‘thrived’ and ‘blossomed’ with the support of the service. One relative said, “[Family member] is very happy there. He has never looked back. He has thrived.”

Care plans were developed and regularly reviewed with people, and their advocates where appropriate, to ensure they reflected individual goals and the things that were important to them.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

Staff had completed Mental Capacity Act (MCA) training and demonstrated an understanding of how to apply this in practice. Care plans contained MCA assessments and best interest (BI) decisions. Care plans reviewed contained documented consent to share information and consent for photographs. However, in some care plans these were signed by staff. There was no evidence of the person giving consent themselves, if they lacked capacity for that decision, or how a best-interest decision was made.

Another person had some restrictions in place to mitigate risks, such as limitations on telephone access and bedtime routines. However, there was no record of a decision specific capacity assessment, or a documented best interest decision making process.

These issues were discussed with the provider during the assessment, who undertook to address them as a matter of urgency.