Shrewsbury Road - Max Potential

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 service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (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 and relatives told us they were involved in assessments, and their needs were being met. People had personalised care and support plans which reflected both their physical and mental health needs. Care plans were reviewed as necessary and reflected a good understanding of people’s needs, including relevant assessments of people’s communication support and sensory needs.

Initial assessments were completed prior to a person being supported. People were offered the choice of introductory visits to the home, prior to deciding about staying on a permanent basis; a relative told us, “I can't complain or fault the staff. The registered manager and the GP recommended that we went to see the home a few times, before [person] moved in. The registered manager told me that he won't have any new people who aren't compatible with the existing residents. The registered manager arranged for [person] to visit home for his birthday, and he was happy to go back. We agreed that this was a good sign and I do have peace of mind.”

People’s care plans considered their health needs and were used by health and social care professionals to support them in the way they needed. Staff understood the importance of promoting people’s independence.

Staff knew about people’s capacity to make decisions through verbal or non-verbal means, and this was documented. People were empowered to make their own decisions about their care and support.

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 provider monitored all clinical areas of care to ensure people’s needs were being met; this included people’s skin integrity, whether they had any infections or experienced any weight loss.

People’s nutritional and hydration needs were being met. Care plans include person-centred information about people’s nutrition and hydration needs, including details of any enhanced monitoring, risks or related health conditions. Guidance for staff reflected best practice guidance and there was effective recording system in place where risks had been identified.

People told us they were happy with the food and choices provided. One person told us, "The food is very good my favourite is jacket potato and beans.” A second person said, “I like the pies, they drop them off in a grocery van and the carers do all the cooking.” People were encouraged to follow a balance diet and staff supported people to attend any health appointments.

Staff told us there were enough on duty each day to support people with mealtimes and safely meet people’s needs.

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 and leaders worked with external professionals and support services to meet people’s assessed needs, for example, district nurses and dieticians. Staff encouraged involvement from people, so they had choices and options and the ability to access services in the community.

Care and support was developed and provided in partnership with people, relevant external professionals and clinicians. Regular meetings were held to ensure care was tailored to meet people’s immediate or changing needs, and records were detailed; this also ensured all avenues for people’s wellbeing were reviewed and accessed a timely manner.

Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan and deliver people’s care, treatment and support. Care plans considered people’s individual needs, circumstances, ongoing care arrangements and expected 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.

The provider ensured people’s physical health was monitored regularly. People said they were supported to manage their own health needs as much as possible. Care plan information allowed staff to effectively understand people’s healthcare needs, including people’s preferences on how they would like their healthcare needs to be supported and level of independence.

People were supported to be as physically active as possible, and we observed people taking part in activities or following their own personal interests during the inspection. This included regular walks into town, swimming and playing basketball. We saw fruit and vegetables in the kitchen which people were encouraged to eat.

Staff had a good knowledge of relevant health care concerns, how to identify them in the people they supported, and how to respond; our review of care records confirmed this.

Relatives were complimentary about how people were supported. One relative told us, "Staff are so welcoming and very kind; we all went out for a meal together and it was lovely.”

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.

People were supported in a person-centred way, and their care needs were routinely monitored and reviewed. The provider worked with a number of different professionals and stakeholders to support positive outcomes for people. Staff understood how to monitor people’s clinical outcomes and act on any concerns; our review of care records confirmed this.

Care records showed people's health and well-being was routinely monitored. People living at the home were registered with GPs and dentists and were supported to attend any appointments by staff.

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

The provider and registered manager ensured people’s views and wishes were considered when their care was planned and people confirmed this. People understood their rights around consent and staff supported them to understand these.

People received information about their care and treatment in a way they could understand and had appropriate support and time to make decisions. People's capacity and ability to consent was considered.

Staff understood the importance of ensuring people fully understood what they were consenting to and the importance of obtaining consent before they delivered care or treatment. We observed staff seeking consent from people throughout this inspection.

We didn’t see any evidence of restrictive practice screening tools being used which looks at any interventions that limit a person’s liberty, rights, or freedom of movement. One person living at the home was a smoker, although staff kept their cigarettes and lighter as a safety precaution. We spoke with the registered manager about ensuring this decision was captured either via a consent form, or restrictive practice screening tool.