The Lindsay

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 inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has changed to good, the service had made improvements to ensure documentation relating to consent is in accordance with legislation. 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 service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s care and support needs were assessed before they moved into the service, relatives told us this was a thorough process. After admission, people’s care and support needs were assessed, reviewed, and updated as required. The pre-assessment formed the basis of the care plans which had developed over time. Staff told us they had enough information about a person when they moved into the service. People’s records were accurate and reflected the care they were receiving. There was a clear review process which ensured people, and their loved ones were involved.
 

The service 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 and those important to them were involved in creating care plans and risk assessments. Relatives told us communication with the service was effective. Staff told us they worked with people to follow good practice guidance; this had included working to support people’s mobility needs and medical conditions. Evidence-based care underpinned the policies, procedures and ways of working within the service.
 

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their inspection of needs when people moved between different services.

People told us their information was shared as required, for example with the GP or pharmacist. Staff kept detailed records of care delivered, these were shared and reviewed as needed. The manager and management team had oversight of records and could access details of care to share them with external professionals as required. This had included scrutiny at provider level. A health and social care professional said, “They regularly communicate through to us, and any issues brought up by them are seen to quickly. I believe [the provider and manager] know how our service works, and they know their residents well.” The providers electronic care planning system had made the sharing of information efficient.
 

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People and their relatives told us they were certain the service promoted wellbeing in all areas. People were confident in staff to help them live their best lives. People and their loved ones told us of ways their wellbeing and general health had improved since moving to the service. Health and welfare promotion was a thread through all care and support plans, with proposed outcomes and goals listed. Dietary needs were assessed and catered for; we saw robust processes for ensuring people’s risks around nutrition were managed. People and their relatives were complimentary about the food and drinks available at the service. People had access to a wide range of external professionals and health specialists such as, speech and language therapists and memory support specialists. A health and social care professional said, “The staff are very competent and there is a clear communication between all of us. I believe people are well looked after by the staff.”

The service 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 shared examples of how their lives had improved since receiving care and support from the service. Relatives told us of the peace of mind they felt since their loved one had moved to the service. A relative told us, “I am completely confident in the work they do there.” Records detailed clear goals and outcomes for people, and this included instructions for staff. The monitoring and oversight of clinical needs was robust, the service had been actively working on reducing adverse health conditions such as pressure wounds, this work was ongoing. The service held various clinical meetings to discuss people’s outcomes in detail, this meant people were receiving care which supported their goals. Staff told us there had been improvements in this area since the last inspection under the current management of the service. Each care plan and risk assessment were individual and unique to the person. People were receiving the care they required.
 

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

People told us they were treated with respect and supported to live their lives well. Where appropriate, relatives had been involved in decisions made on the persons behalf. Consent was sought from people and where necessary in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Decision making had been improved and was supported by clear policies and processes. The management team and staff understood the principles of the MCA. Records showed consent had been sought for the care provided. Improvements to documentation had been made and care was planned in the persons best interest in the least restrictive way and in consultation with others, this was part of the normal process for the service. Where people had given a relative or friend the legal authority to act on their behalf in matters such as their health and welfare needs, the correct documentation was in place. The service planned further development of consent and capacity assessments and were working in consultation with specialists in mental health care.