Midlands Supported Living

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.

People had care plans in place that reflected their assessed needs. Most care plans gave a clear picture of how people should be supported. We saw one care plan that did not fully describe a person’s needs; however, staff were able to demonstrate good knowledge of the person and explained how they provided appropriate support. This reduced the risk of ineffective care.

People and, where appropriate, their relatives told us they were involved in assessments. Staff reviewed assessments with them and took account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Relatives told us they felt involved in planning care and understood how support was delivered.

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.

The service used recognised tools to guide care. People had nutritional assessments completed using the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), which enabled staff to identify risks and act where needed. Food and nutrition care plans supported people to maintain a healthy diet.

Staff demonstrated good knowledge of people’s needs and followed guidance in practice. Relatives were confident that care was effective. One relative said staff were “well trained to monitor and support [person’s] healthy eating”.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. Staff worked collaboratively to support people. During the inspection we observed staff working together to support one person in a calm and coordinated way. External agencies did not report any difficulties working with the service.

Relatives felt included and informed about their family member’s care. One relative told us they were “kept informed of any medical appointments” and felt able to support their relative alongside staff. This helped ensure continuity of care and positive outcomes.

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.

Staff monitored people’s health and supported them to attend healthcare appointments when needed. People had enough to eat and drink to stay healthy, and staff worked with healthcare professionals to achieve the best outcomes.

Relatives spoke positively about how staff supported people’s health. One relative said, “the healthcare is exceptional… they keep an eye on [person’s] weight”. Another told us staff made sure there were enough staff available, so appointments and community activities were not cancelled.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it.

Reviews of care had mostly improved and were taking place; however, they did not always include people’s own goals, skills, strengths or aspirations. This meant people’s short, medium and long-term outcomes were not always clearly planned or measured.

Managers were aware of these gaps and had started to make improvements. Staff knew people well, which reduced the risk of poor outcomes while systems continued to develop.

Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were in place and appropriately documented. Care plans showed people’s views and wishes were considered. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment as far as possible to support informed consent. Staff understood Deprivation of Liberty processes, and we saw where an appropriate request had been made to the local authority for this to be in place to increase somebody's safety.

Relatives told us they were informed of changes to care and felt able to raise concerns. This showed the service respected people’s rights and followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.