Thanet House

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 assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s outcomes were not always consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 54 (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 demonstrate effective or consistent ongoing review of people’s needs, which affected confidence that care was always based on the most current information.

Assessments were carried out prior to people moving in; however, these were limited in scope and did not capture all of people’s health and social care needs. People told us they had been consulted when their care plan was first devised but they had not taken part in the review of their care needs.

The provider did not always plan and deliver evidence-based care and treatment.

Due to the complex mental health needs of people using the service, care plans specified the need for trauma-informed practice. However, there was insufficient information in place to ensure staff understood what this meant and staff had not received training in mental health or trauma informed practice to ensure they had the skills and knowledge necessary to deliver this specialised care.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. Staff roles and responsibilities were not always clear. In response to concerns raised by the local authority the provider had put in place a shift planning system to ensure people receiving care and staff all understood which member of staff would be delivering each person’s 1-to-1 care on each shift. The shift planning system had been abandoned after a few days and was not in use when we visited. On the day of the inspection, we saw one person become increasingly anxious when due to a miscommunication and lack of shift plan it became unclear which member of staff was delivering their 1-to-1 support. This highlighted the need to have a robust shift planning system in place to ensure roles and responsibilities on each shift were clear to everyone.

Communication with other professionals was not always effective to ensure people’s needs were consistently met. Although we saw some examples of good partnership working, and input from mental health clinicians this was inconsistent, and we found examples where people would benefit from input from external professionals to help them achieve positive outcomes.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Care records and support plans lacked information on preventative strategies to support people’s ongoing health and wellbeing. Some people using the service required support with healthy eating and meal planning. Care records showed staff were not routinely supporting this person to plan healthy meals. One person’s care plan said staff should monitor the person for dehydration, however there was no fluid target in place and staff were not recording fluid intake.

The provider did not routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Due to the issues we found with medicines management, risk assessments and care plans we could not be assured that people were experiencing positive and consistent outcomes or that these were being effectively monitored.

The provider was working in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and associated guidance.

Staff were able to describe to us how they gave people choice and respected people's decisions within their day-to-day life. One member of staff told us, "We always seek permission from people we support prior to supporting them with their needs." People’s capacity had been assessed and DoLs applications made where necessary.