Middleton Fells

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated as good. This meant people’s outcomes were 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 was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Relatives told us they had been involved in peoples’ care planning. Care plans were reviewed and discussed regularly involving the relevant people. People’s differing communications needs had been appropriately recorded. A variety of assessments tools were being used to assess and manage people’s needs. However, we were not assured these assessment always contained accurate information. Where people who were at risk of constipation and the potential health impact stool monitoring was not in place. The provider took immediate action to address this.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

Families and advocates were fully involved in the processes for ongoing assessing and reviewing of people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs. However, we found some information recorded about people was not always current or accurate. Where people had different dietary needs preferences, these were recorded. Some people required staff support with their eating habits and choices in balancing their nutritional health.

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.

Care records were kept electronically, and these were accessible to staff. Staff worked well together and information was shared and communicated regularly within the wider staff teams. We observed regular handover of information at each shift change. Meetings were held regularly for the sharing information. The staff team had access to support from the provider’s team of clinical and specialist advisors. Where relevant referrals to external professionals were seen to be made. There was evidence of staff working collaboratively to understand and meet people’s needs.

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 supported to access a range of health care professionals and staff monitored people’s health and well-being. People were supported in making choices about their own health needs where they could. Some barriers had been identified in accessing local health services and the registered manager was proactive in addressing this.

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

Records and assessments for identifying people’s goals and aspirations were not always reflective of current situations, practises and peoples’ abilities. However, for some people their identified achievements and goals had been recognised and celebrated. Families gave mixed feedback about the experiences of their relatives. One person said, “Since a change in staff, they are not structuring [Relative]. They used to take them swimming, trampolining but now they just take him round in the car.” Another relative told us of lots of good things happening and achievements being made including trips where they stayed away.

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

Consent to care was recorded clearly within people’s care records the provider was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Records included assessments of people’s capacity and best interest decisions where required.

Consent was sought in line with legislation. Where relevant advocacy had been appointed. People’s capacity had been assessed, recorded and identified their abilities in decision making where relevant. People and their families received information about their care in a way that they understood.