Index Care 88 Abbey Wood 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 inspection, we rated this key question good. At this inspection, 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 people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. During the inspection, we observed people and their relatives actively involved in reviews of care and treatment with social care professionals, supported by staff. Records confirmed that care plans and risk assessments were reviewed regularly. The registered manager told us people were involved in developing their care plans and ongoing reviews. Relatives were routinely contacted and invited to attend reviews, which supported a person-centred approach to care.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what wasimportant and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-basedgood practice and standards. Care plans clearly identified people’s complex needs, includingepilepsy management and specific dietary requirements. People’s nutritional needs weredocumented and regularly reviewed.People were supported to plan meals and complete their own shopping in line with theirpreferences and dietary needs. They were able to eat and drink when they chose, and staffsupported people to prepare meals at times that suited them.We saw people had designated storage space in kitchen cupboards and fridges to keep theirfood separate. Staff supported people to prepare their own meals, promoting independence and choice.

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. People had care plans in place that outlined their health and social care support needs. The service worked effectively with external professionals to ensure people received the support they required. This supported joined-up working and meant external services had a clear understanding of people’s needs, reducing the need for people to repeat information and supporting continuity of care.

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 and their relatives were actively involved in discussions about their health, wellbeing and reviews of care. People were supported to attend GP and hospital appointments when required.

Staff worked with social care professionals to ensure people’s care and support arrangements remained up to date. Staff supported people to maintain their health and wellbeing and, where possible, to reduce the risk of future care needs. People and their relatives told us the registered manager and staff supported them to arrange and attend healthcare appointments as needed.

Care plans clearly documented people’s day-to-day health and wellbeing needs, including specific dietary requirements and guidance for staff on how to provide appropriate 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. The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to support continuous improvement and positive outcomes. Care plans and risk assessments were held electronically and were accessible to staff via handheld devices, ensuring up-to-date information was available. People were actively involved in planning their lives and daily activities. They were encouraged to share their interests and choices, and staff took steps to support these wherever possible. This included helping people access community activities such as gyms and sporting events, promoting inclusion and wellbeing.

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

We found that a person had received a medical procedure assessed as being in their best interests; however, they did not have the capacity to consent to the procedure and the reason for it. The mental capacity assessment in place was not decision-specific and did not fully consider the particular decision being made. This meant there was a risk that decisions were made without adequate and targeted consideration of the person’s capacity. We discussed this with the management team, who acknowledged that a decision-specific mental capacity assessment and a documented best-interests’ decision-making process were required. They told us action would be taken to address this.

People had keys to their bedrooms and staff sought permission before entering, which supported people’s privacy and autonomy. People were able to refuse care and treatment, including personal care, if they chose to do so. Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act (2005), with refresher training planned annually to maintain competence. Relatives told us staff sought consent before providing or supporting people with personal care.