Norwich

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.
Managers and leaders at the service undertook assessments of people’s needs and reviewed them regularly. A senior staff member told us, and people confirmed, that they are involved in the care plan review process. Where people were living with a learning disability, assessments of people’s needs ensured care was inclusive and person-centred.
A relative of a person who uses the service told us “I was involved with [relatives] care plan and it has been reviewed. It is all followed as it should be and they do what it says in the care plan”.
 

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 was delivered in a way which met people’s needs in line with best practice guidelines. For example, where people had specialist or more complex needs, staff received relevant training to ensure they had the knowledge needed to deliver care in an effective way. This included training in learning disabilities.
The service used widely recognised tools to assess risks relating to people’s health, such as malnutrition and pressure ulcer risk identification tools. These were updated regularly and the findings reflected within peoples care records.
 

The provider 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.
Communication between leaders and the staff team was excellent, with a weekly newsletter shared containing relevant information to enable staff to have the most up to date information relating to people’s needs.
The service worked in close partnership with healthcare professionals, and held regular meetings to review peoples care needs and progress together. Actions agreed at these meetings were reflected within peoples care notes, with changes then communicated to the care team. This resulted in positive outcomes for people, such as regaining lost skills or returning to living independently.
 

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.
Where people were living with health conditions, information was mostly available for staff to refer to. Where people’s health had declined, the service took action swiftly to seek advice from healthcare professionals and reviewed care records to ensure their needs were met.
For some people living with diabetes, information within care records was limited. However, the service took prompt action to rectify this in response to our feedback.

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 registered manager gave examples of how outcomes for people were monitored and reflected upon to drive improvements. For example, where people needed additional call time, the service referred this to the commissioners. Where there had been wait times for reassessment, the service had delivered the care in the interim to ensure people received the support they required.
 

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.
Staff had undertaken Mental Capacity training and applied this to their practice confidently. Where people required the support of a legal representative to make decisions, this had been reflected within care records and copies of appropriate information held on file.