Little Hayes

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 changed to requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to need for consent.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The provider did not tell people about their rights around consent or respect these when delivering care and treatment.

Staff did not always follow the correct procedures for seeking and recording informed consent in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Mental capacity assessments lacked detailed information including what had been discussed, whether the person could retain, weigh up and communicate decisions and whether the decision was the least restrictive. For example, one person’s mental capacity assessment relating to the use of bed rails did not evidence any discussion with the person, did not record whether they were able to retain, weigh up or communicate the decision, and appeared to assume a lack of capacity without considering whether bed rails were the least restrictive option.

Care plan records and consent forms were contradictory, for example, one person had signed a consent form consenting to various decisions about their care. However, their care plan documented that they lacked capacity in these areas. Another person’s consent form had not been updated following a decision to be cared for in bed and the use of bed rails, meaning staff could not demonstrate that informed consent about care decisions had been appropriately sought or recorded.