ICSL East

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.

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. People told us they were involved in the care planning process. We saw that their care plans were detailed and tailored to people’s individual needs. Staff told us that they were able to view people’s care plans prior to supporting them and people felt that staff understood their needs and how to support them. Care plans were reviewed regularly and amended where required. One staff member told us that some people’s health information could be more detailed as recently they did not have enough information about a person’s health to share with medical professionals when seeking support.

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 saw that the provider used nationally recognised tools to assess people’s needs such as the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) and the Waterlow score- a tool used to assess a person’s risk of developing pressure ulcers. Where required, people were supported to eat and drink, and this was monitored by the service. Staff told us they would report concerns such as weight loss or poor appetite to the management team.

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 Registered Manager told us how they work together with the Local Authority to manage people’s care and that they view the wider team of stakeholders as essential in meeting individual’s needs. People told us that information sharing is good. They said, “All parts of the care team appear to work seamlessly as I have never had an issue of seeing gaps or cracks in the service.”

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 told us that staff support them to remain healthy. One person told us that staff encourage them to self-propel their wheelchair, rather than being pushed as “this ensures that I get some upper-body exercise in addition to self-physio exercises I have set myself.” People told us that where staff identify developing health issues, such as pressure sores, they will contact medical professionals on their behalf if required.

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. People’s care plans were written with people’s desired goals in mind. There was evidence that care plans were regularly reviewed with people to ensure they were still meeting needs and changes were made if needed.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. Where it was suspected that people did not have the mental capacity to consent to their care, Mental Capacity Assessments had been completed. However, Best Interest Decisions had not been documented. This meant there was no clear evidence that decisions were made in the person’s best interests, as required under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. In some instances, it appeared that relatives had signed consent forms where they did not have legal rights to do so. The impact on people was minimal as staff were able to tell us how they gained consent from people when delivering care. Staff told us that, where people refused support, they would encourage them to accept this but ultimately could not force people to agree to help. If this was an ongoing issue, staff told us they would escalate this to the management team.