Longton Court

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 79 (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.

Staff carried out assessments before people moved to the service to ensure their needs could be met. This included considering their health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs. One person had recently moved to the service, and the environment and support provided helped them to maintain skills and independence and improved their wellbeing and quality of life. For example, the person had private access to their flat and staff were responsive to changes in the individual's preferences. They told us the independence they had at Longton Court and being able to access the local community and beach improved their mental health and mood.

People’s needs and abilities were regularly reviewed to ensure changes and ongoing needs were fully understood. As well as formal reviews, there were monthly keyworker meetings and daily checks with people. A keyworker is a member of staff with responsibility for coordinating care and support for people, ensuring their needs and preferences are met. Keyworker meetings were documented, and these were thorough and had a positive focus. People were invited to be involved in reviews but usually preferred to give feedback informally.

Some people had specific communication needs, and staff understood these and worked with individuals to maximise the effectiveness of any assessments. Staff used a range of tools to ensure people’s needs were shared and understood.Assessments were up-to-date and staff understood people’s current needs.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and support 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.

Staff understood the tools and guidance, which was used within the service. This helped them provide evidence-based care, which was in line with current good practice standards. The provider employed psychologists who guided the staff team to support people effectively.

People’s nutrition and hydration needs were met in line with current guidance. Staff supported people to manage their dietary needs and encouraged them to make healthy choices where possible. Some people made choices which negatively affected their health or wellbeing, and one person had some restrictions on the food they could access. Staff aimed to educate and advise people where possible, and risk assessments provided staff with practical guidance to balance safety and restrictions.

People told us staff knew them well and knew how to support them. They said they were able to eat and drink when they wanted, and staff were flexible in the support they provided.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing assessments and information appropriately.

Information was shared between teams and services to ensure continuity of care. For example, when one person moved to the service from hospital, there was a long transition period to ensure the person was comfortable and staff understood their individual needs well. Another person had moved from a different care home, and all the information and assessments which had previously been carried out were transferred with them. This helped staff to know more about the person to be able to provide consistent, person-centred support as soon as they arrived.

People’s care files contained health action plans and hospital passports. These documents help ensure information is shared to meet people’s needs and make reasonable adjustments when they use healthcare services.

Staff were proactive in working with other services to ensure people’s needs were met. This included routine health checks, screening associated with specific conditions, specialist learning disability services and mental health teams. Information was clearly documented, and actions or recommendations were shared with staff and followed.

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 encouraged to be as independent as possible and take control over their choices about their health and wellbeing needs. One person told us they managed this independently, and we saw others needed full staff support. Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and knew how to respond if someone’s physical or mental health deteriorated.

Care records provided information which allowed staff to understand people’s needs and preferences regarding health and wellbeing. Clear and specific guidance was in place to help staff recognise changes in people’s needs. This included changes to their mental health. People were encouraged and supported to access annual health checks and health action plans were in place and followed.

One person had a Care (Education) and Treatment Review (CETR) recorded in their care file. This showed a multi-disciplinary team had considered the person’s preferences and how best to support them to prevent unnecessary hospital admissions.

People were encouraged to understand and make healthier choices relating to their diet, lifestyle, physical activity, personal and oral hygiene. This was challenging for some, but staff provided support and found activities or methods which suited the individual.

The provider monitored all people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they fully met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The provider had a good understanding of legislation, national standards and evidence-based practice guidance which was relevant to the service. Effectiveness was monitored and evaluated continuously and robustly by staff who were skilled in reviewing assessments and outcomes.

Records included a positive focus on people’s skills, experiences and strengths. This helped staff understand how people’s outcomes could most effectively be planned and aims worked towards. They worked alongside people to understand their choices and needs.

People were told about their rights around consent, and these were respected when staff supported them.

People told us their views and choices were taken into account when their support needs were planned and reviewed. One person said, “The staff are pretty good. They listen to me. They do what I want.”

Staff shared information with people in different ways to aid their understanding. For example, verbal consent was gained before staff provided daily support, and people had signed an easy-to-read form to show they consented to their photograph being taken.

Staff told us they respected people’s wishes and decisions when supporting them. Comments from staff included, “We tailor the care we provide to the individual” and “We are definitely person centred. We know people well. We meet their needs.”

Staff received training and were able to tell us why it was important to gain consent from people and support them in making decisions.

Staff had identified whether people had the mental capacity to give consent about specific decisions. Where necessary, decisions were made in people’s best interests in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Assessments and decisions were clearly documented.