Housing 21 - Bridlington Branch

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 good. At this inspection the rating has remained 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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always ensure information was recorded effectively.

Senior staff completed initial assessments that were usually thorough and captured people’s health conditions, preferences, routines, mobility, and communication needs. However, some assessments lacked key information. For example, 1 person’s care record omitted details about recent health issues despite these being referenced elsewhere in their care plan. People and relatives told us their needs were generally understood, and staff reviewed plans when changes occurred. One relative said, “When we first applied to get [Name] in the service, they (staff) came straight out to assist our needs.

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.

Staff delivered care in line with guidance and kept detailed records to support safe and effective care delivery. The electronic system allowed staff to review tasks, medicine use, and changes in health. Assessments were monitored through regular audits. Staff sought input from health professionals when needed. For example, they made GP referrals using an online system and worked with speech and language therapy regarding swallowing concerns. A staff member told us the system was, “Helpful for keeping everything updated.”

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.

Staff worked effectively with external professionals, including GPs, district nurses, mental health teams, and wellbeing services, to ensure people received coordinated care. Staff told us they felt communication within the team was strong and that managers were approachable and supportive. A staff member told us, “The office staff are always helpful when we need them.” Records showed regular handovers, multidisciplinary updates, and real‑time information shared through the digital system. Staff and managers described working collaboratively to adjust rosters, respond to people’s needs, and complete shared tasks.

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.

Staff encouraged and supported people to maintain their health and wellbeing. They made referrals for health input, such as GP reviews, swallowing assessments, and community health checks. Staff supported people to attend hospital or community appointments. The service enabled people to participate in activities that supported emotional wellbeing, including reminiscence sessions, seated exercise, crafts, and regular social events. One relative told us, “They put a lot of activities on for the people.”

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 service used audits, digital call monitoring, and regular care plan reviews to identify issues quickly and take corrective action. Managers tracked missed or late calls, monitored medication records, and used alerts to escalate concerns such as weight loss or skin integrity. Staff told us they received feedback when improvements were needed, and records showed actions were followed up. Relatives said they felt reassured. One explained, ““They keep me informed all the time and I can easily contact them if required and they respond straight away.”

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

Staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act, and documentation about consent, capacity, and restrictive practices was clear. People told us staff respected their preferences, including how to address them, routines, and how they liked tasks to be carried out. Where people lacked capacity, the service appropriately recorded best‑interest decisions. A staff member told us, “Everything about consent is on the care plans. We always check what people prefer.”