Archived: Alternative House Care Home Blackburn

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 changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

Improvements had been made. Care provided was individualised and person centred Whilst more complex needs were not always fully reflected in care plans, people and most relatives confirmed they were involved in the assessment process and felt people’s needs and preferences were met. External health professionals were involved to ensure care and support met best practice guidelines and manage underlying health conditions.

The manager had knowledge of people’s care and treatment. Staff worked closely with external health professionals and delivered care according to health professional’s instructions. People (or their representative) were involved in care planning and consent was sought before care was delivered. If restrictions were required, the service followed a legal framework to ensure these were lawful.

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.

People and their families were confident staff knew people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs.

The manager told us staff completed full assessments with people on admission and reviewed them regularly.

Some care plans appeared incomplete. Some people lacked assessments that identify people who are at risk of malnutrition or suffering from malnutrition. Some people lacked assessment on the risk of developing pressure ulcer or sores based on their characteristics, medication or health conditions. We discussed this with the manager who stated they would review the care plans and include the assessments.

Staff knew people well, knew when people were ill and were able to seek clinical support and work in partnership with health professionals when required.

People had access to health professionals when needed. The provider accessed physical and mental health support when this was required. The manager told us there was regular support from district nurses and GP’s.

Reviews of people’s health took place regularly with community based health professionals and documentation we viewed showed expert advice was sought when required.

The provider had sought specialist equipment to meet people’s needs and keep them safe.

The manager and staff felt morale and teamwork was good leading to effective outcomes for people. One staff member commented, “Everyone helps each other. We chat together, we chat with the residents.”

Health professionals told us the manager and staff shared information appropriately and worked well with them.

The provider did not provide all evidence requested for this assessment.

The pre-admission assessments allowed staff access to the information they needed to appropriately deliver people’s care, treatment and support.

There was regular contact with community based health professionals where any concerns or queries about people’s health needs could be discussed.

Feedback on the care and support was positive from people and relatives. The manager ensured people were able to attend health appointments when required. Relatives told us dietary requirements and preferences were well catered for, and we saw a variety of snacks and drinks available. We overheard 1 person praise a staff member on the cooking of their, “bacon butties”.

Staff told us they had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan and deliver people’s care, treatment and support.

Staff and the manager had good working relationships with external health professionals. One visiting health professional praised the managers person centred knowledge and how organised staff were when supporting them to meet people’s needs.

Families we spoke with told us staff always took appropriate action if their relatives were unwell for example, calling the GP or ambulance.

Assessments of need were carried out and this identified where people needed support. This helped ensure people had the right advice and support at the time they needed it.

Some systems were in place to monitor people’s health where necessary. For example, monitoring people’s weight, or how much they ate and drank. Not all care plans had processes to monitor risk.

People said they were always asked for consent with all matters regarding to care.

Staff informed us they always sought people’s consent before providing care or support. During this assessment we observed staff were asking for people’s consent. The management team told us they had systems in place to ensure any restrictions in place were lawful and monitored.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (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 MCA 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 made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, whether appropriate legal authorisations were in place when needed to deprive a person of their liberty, and whether any conditions relating to those authorisations were being met. We found no evidence that the provider was not working within the principles of MCA. Staff demonstrated a strong understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and were able to identify which residents were subject to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The manager had oversight on which people had restrictions in place to keep them safe.