Hylton Care

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

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 as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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.

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.

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.

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

The provider had ensured written consent was received when commencing and reviewing care for people using the service. This covered aspects such as, receiving personal care. However, they couldn’t evidence that consent had been sought for all aspects of their service, such as, relatives having access to people’s care records. When speaking with people, we did not find impact as people were aware this practice was in place and were not concerned. The provider shared their plans with us to embed this aspect of the service into consent forms.

Some people were unable to make decisions about their care, for themselves. Initially, we found the provider had not correctly applied the Mental Capacity Act (MCA, 2005). When this was highlighted to the Registered Manager, they took prompt action to rectify this and were able to evidence the correct process and application of the MCA (2005), as well as the best interest checklist, before our assessment concluded.