Neale 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 as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as 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.

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.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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.

The provider informed people of their rights around consent and respected these when delivering care and treatment. People and relatives told us they were involved in decisions about mental capacity and best interests. However, mental capacity assessments did not always demonstrate robust decision making. Records often relied on yes or no responses and did not clearly evidence how people, relatives or advocates had been involved. Assessments lacked detail about the support provided, the questions asked, the person's responses and the rationale for decisions, often relying on general references to dementia. Best interest records provided more detail about discussions with people and their relatives and were more consistent with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. However, they did not clearly show what alternative or less restrictive options had been considered or the rationale for the decisions made.