Milford Del Support Agency

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 Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has improved to Good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good and frequently better than expected compared to similar services, and people’s feedback described it as very safe and personalised.

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 was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s risk assessments were person-centred and detailed support people needed to safely manage all areas of their health and wellbeing. For example, in relation to diabetes, eating and drinking, skin integrity and mental health. Guidance included how to recognise early signs of declining health, and what action to take. This meant people had timely access to the right support and helped people remain safe.

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 service provided therapeutic support, tailored to individual needs. It focused on helping people adopt safe behaviours while reducing those that could cause harm, enabling people to express their needs more effectively and confidently. People told us as a result, individuals experienced a better quality of life.

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.

The service partnered with another local support provider, allowing people to access activities that would have otherwise been unavailable to increase people’s access to sporting events, an animal petting zoo and boat trips. The service also contributed to a night club for people with a learning disability This contributed to a higher quality of life.

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.

Some people who used the service had multiple health needs and life limiting conditions. Information about people's health needs and how these should be managed was clearly documented in people's care plans. For example, a person’s epilepsy care plan provided staff with detailed information to identify pre-seizure signs, types of seizures and actions for staff to take. Staff kept clear records of any visits or correspondence with healthcare professionals, which documented the reasons for the visit, actions and the outcome. This helped to ensure that medical advice was followed.

People and their families told us they were supported to understand clinical advice and discuss any concerns with the relevant medical professionals. For example, we observed people with multiple health needs being supported to maintain adequate nutrition and hydration as advised by their consultant. Staff could describe people’s needs in detail and how they used nationally recognised tools to assess and monitor people’s nutrition and hydration needs. This meant people were receiving evidence-based care that supported their wellbeing. records showed clear progress had been made, behaviours communicating distress had decreased, while people’s abilities had improved

People had robust hospital passports and emergency bags. These contained essential information to ensure people would be supported safely in an emergency.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care 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’s skills, life experiences, and personal strengths were actively discussed with them and their support teams to help shape meaningful, achievable outcomes. This approach allowed individuals to take ownership of their goals and understand the steps needed to reach them. Support plans focused on what people could do, rather than perceived barriers, which helped maintain both physical and mental wellbeing. This led to increased self-confidence, greater independence, and an improved quality of life.

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

Staff followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The MCA provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that as far as possible people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any decisions made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. We found assessments of people's capacity had been completed when needed. Records showed where people lacked capacity, decisions made on their behalf were made in line with the MCA.

People and their families told us that staff sought consent before providing care or support. Consent forms were accessible in picture and written format to support people to make informed choices about their care.