ABI Homes - Roman House

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 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 had assessed people's care needs, but we found these were not always up to date. For example, when people had restrictive interventions in place, records did not always clearly describe the supportive holds or restraints to be used. Where people’s care plans were not always effectively updated when they experienced a change in needs, this increased the risk of people's needs and preferences not being met. The provider was responsive to our feedback and instigated a full review of positive behaviour support (PBS) plans and developed new audit tools to review all people’s care plans.

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. People had health passports in place and were supported to attend appointments with external health professionals. A relative said, “Staff understand [Person’s] health needs and we attend these appointments together.”

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 gave us examples of external professionals they had worked with in relation to people’s health and care needs. For example, psychologists and GPs. A relative said, “Care plans are shared and next steps discussed. I am involved and my views taken into consideration.”

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. For example, one person wanted to lose weight. Staff planned with the person and supported them to attend the local gym. Staff promoted and supported people to plan and cook their own meals, with a focus on promoting healthy options and portion sizes where possible.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. For example, records around restrictive interventions were not always clear. This meant it was difficult to understand how often and at what level of intensity restrictions were being used. The provider was responsive to our feedback and made immediate changes to enhance the recording of these events. They also completed a detailed review of restrictive practices within the service.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Where needed, the provider completed mental capacity assessments and applied for required deprivation of liberty applications. The outcomes of these were clearly recorded in people’s records. Whilst everyone using the service was under continuous supervision, we observed they were able to come and go when they chose with support of staff. A relative said, “There are no restrictions and [Person’s] liberty is upheld.”