Huntingdonshire Learning Disability Partnership

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

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.

Staff assessed people upon receipt of referral. They developed individual care plans which were reviewed regularly through multidisciplinary discussion and updated as needed. Staff provided a range of treatment and care for people based on national guidance and best practice. Staff from different disciplines worked together as a team to benefit people. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health Act Code of Practice and discharged these well.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Effective.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

We reviewed 6 care records during the assessment.

Staff developed care plans that met the needs identified during assessment. Care plans were personalised, and relevant for the interventions required. Staff updated care plans when necessary.

We reviewed minutes from multidisciplinary team meetings (MDT). These evidenced people’s care and treatment being reviewed by the MDT.

The service monitored the methods of contact from people, their carers and other professionals. This ensured the service was accessible, safe, responsive, and person-centred. The consultant psychiatrist would always visit the person using the service face to face for their first appointment and after that they could choose whether their appointments were face to face, by phone or remote via videocall.

Staff told us about access assessments, whereby people's needs were assessed if they were not already known to the LDP. This was a joint assessment with staff from both health and social care.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health Act Code of Practice and discharged these well

Staff provided a range of care and treatment interventions suitable for people who used services. The interventions were those recommended by, and were delivered in line with, guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. These included art and music therapy, physiotherapy, psychology, psychiatry, occupational therapy, nursing and speech and language therapy.

Staff participated in clinical audits and quality improvement initiatives. For example, people’s notes were audited to ensure all relevant information had been added. This enabled staff to provide effective and comprehensive support.

The team included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of people using the service. This included, but was not limited to; psychologists, nurses, occupational therapists, social workers and speech and language therapists. Staff were experienced and qualified and had the right skills and knowledge to meet the needs of the people using the service.

Managers provided new staff with appropriate induction. Managers provided staff with supervision (meetings to discuss case management, to reflect on and learn from practice, and for personal support and professional development) and appraisal of their work performance.

Managers ensured that staff had access to regular team meetings. The percentage of staff that had had an appraisal in the last 12 months was 88.71%. The percentage of staff that received regular supervision was 95.31%.

Managers identified the learning needs of staff and provided them with opportunities to develop their skills and knowledge. Managers ensured that staff received the necessary specialist training for their roles. Managers dealt with poor staff performance promptly and effectively.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service always worked well across teams and services to support people. They shared thorough assessments of people’s needs when they moved between different services, so people only needed to tell their story once.

Staff held regular and effective multidisciplinary meetings, sharing information about people who used the services. The LDP worked closely with the young adults team and provided health interventions for the people using their service.

The teams had effective working relationships, with other relevant teams within Cambridgeshire County Council health and social care as well as Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust. The teams also had effective working relationships with teams outside the organisation (for example, GP surgeries, day services, police, fire service, and neighbourhood teams). Cambridgeshire County Council operated several work-based opportunities for Autistic people and people with a learning disability. These were based across the county and focussed on catering and hospitality, alongside bicycle repair skills. Additional support was available to assist people to find voluntary or paid work placements, CV writing and job searching.

Nursing facilitated Learning Disability awareness sessions with GP’s and linked in with social prescribers too.

We observed MDT meetings, as well as the wider team, external visitors had been invited where appropriate.

The multidisciplinary team had been working with a person who presented with a fear of falling. The fear had limited the persons engagement with standard physiotherapy interventions.

Environmental and organisational adjustments had been implemented. A staff member was working with a person’s care home to ensure consistency of approach and continuity of therapeutic strategies across both settings. Regular reviews of adjustments were taking place to evaluate the effectiveness and inform further adjustment as needed.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

Staff supported people to live healthier lives. The service would signpost people to an organisation which offered inclusive education and support services around relationships, sexual health and wellbeing. This also included sexual rights and responsibilities.

Nursing staff promoted health screening, good nutrition and hydration and oral hygiene. A group had been developed which included a number of resources to support oral hygiene.

Staff told us about plans to work with GPs to promote cervical screening, with a focus on how to encourage people to attend and overcome barriers to attendance.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

Staff used recognised rating scales to assess and record severity and outcomes. For example, psychology monitored outcomes using Glasgow anxiety and depression scales and Health of the Nation Outcome Scales for People with Learning Disabilities (HoNOS-LD). This is an assessment tool designed to measure the health and social functioning of adults with learning disabilities and mental health needs.

Nursing staff told us about a joint working project they had done with the integrated neighbourhood team. This was on improving health outcomes for people with learning disabilities.

Staff used technology to support people effectively. For example, staff were able to access one health software system for up-to-date information of people’s medications and other relevant health information as well as a different software system for social care needs. However, some staff told us they found the social care software system ‘clunky’.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff took all practical steps to enable people to make their own decisions. For people who might have impaired mental capacity, staff assessed and recorded capacity to consent appropriately. They did this on a decision-specific basis with regard to significant decisions. People’s views and wishes were taken into account when their care was planned, recognising the importance of feelings, culture and history. People received information about care and treatment in a way they could understand and had appropriate support and time to make decisions.

As an example, staff told us when supporting someone with communication difficulties who was unable to verbalise they were withdrawing their consent, staff would use cues such as body language and disengagement to identify the person was withdrawing.