Stable Lives

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.

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

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

Assessments were completed prior to support starting and information collected transferred through to care plans. Care records were person centred and detailed how a person wanted to be supported as well as information around capacity and communication. Regular reviews of care plans were seen to take place with involvement of people and families.
 

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.

Care records showed people were given choice and control about their care and support. The service responded to people’s care needs appropriately.

People and their families told us they were involved in discussions about their care. One relative told us, “Yes I do get asked my view and what they plan to do or where they plan to take [person] and what I think.”
 

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.

We saw that people had access to healthcare professionals and advice from professionals was sought and appropriate follow up by staff was taken when people required health interventions.

Staff were positive about managers and their colleagues and how they worked well together as a team. One staff member told us, “In my experience, we work well as a team, communicate openly, and help each other when things get busy or challenging.”
 

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, reducing their future needs for care and support.

We saw positive feedback from professionals about support given by staff and partnership working. Staff could describe how they supported people to remain healthy and what action they would take if someone’s health changed, or they required additional support.

People attended regular health check-ups such as GP and dental appointments as well as annual reviews.

People had detailed health passports in place which gave important information about the person.
 

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.

ABC charts were in place to assist with identifying causes of behaviours of distress which were reviewed and analysed by the senior team to support individuals to reduce or manage their behaviours. These were being used effectively with the use of PRN medicines being reduced or in the process of being removed for some people. We recommended to the provider to review these further to assist with analysis by external professionals and to ensure all staff were always completing all relevant information.

We saw that regular reviews of support took place and that people, and their families were involved in these. This included review of goals and outcomes achieved. Review of support was completed daily, and monthly meetings were held with people. One staff member commented, “The service user I support has a monthly meeting with my other work colleagues. We discuss any concerns that may have arisen and come to a satisfactory conclusion to resolve any problems.”
 

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

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.

Staff received training in the MCA and understood the importance of ensuring that people fully understood what they were consenting to and the importance of obtaining consent before care was delivered. One staff member told us, “I always communicate clearly, explain what I’m doing and check that the person understands and agrees which helps them to make informed decisions and choices. I do not allow my personal values or beliefs to influence the decision of the service user. If it is in their best interest, I follow best interest decision making procedure when I am concerned about capacity.”

One relative expressed that they would like staff to think decisions through more when supporting their relative with best interest decisions. They commented, “As with all things MCA there is a fine line with what [person] thinks they need and what [person] needs.” A best interest meeting was being planned to discuss further.