Maer Lane

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

This service scored 67 (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 make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check people’s health, care, wellbeing plans reflected their individual needs.

Although people, and those close to them, were actively involved in the development of their individual assessments and reviews of their care these plans did not comprehensively record or reflect their needs. For example, we saw instances where people had received a diagnosis of dementia. However, there was a lack of effective instructions for staff on how these diagnoses impacted on the individual or how this was likely to progress. People had care and support plans that reflected other aspects of their lives including, skin integrity, mobility, diet and nutrition. Staff understood people’s life histories which included good and less than good experiences. Care and support plans reflected these experiences in a way which did not dwell on negatives from people’s past but recorded them to help understand how people had progressed and what additional support could be needed.

The service 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. For example, people had assessments associated with their mobility, skin integrity, nutrition and medicines. When changes in people’s physical health were known or suspected staff acted promptly to arrange additional support to ensure their needs were met in a timely way. One relative told us they were reassured as the staff always acted in their family members best interests when it came to arranging medical appointments which they did in a timely way.

The service 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. People were supported by staff to attend appointments and assessments and encouraged their involvement and participation in the assessment. People had devised individual passports where their needs and preferences were recorded to minimise the potential for anxiety. One healthcare partner told us, “Staff are able to follow care plans and risk assessments to ensure that [people’s] physical health needs are met.”

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. People were supported to access additional healthcare services when needed. Staff told us about instances where they had observed changes in people’s health. They felt this was because of having a consistent staff team who people knew well and with whom had developed relationships over time. One healthcare partner told us, “Staff work well together as a team.” They went on to say they believed this successful team work prevented deterioration of people’s existing health conditions.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. People were supported by staff who engaged healthcare professionals in reviews and assessments to ensure relevant information was incorporated into their care plans. One healthcare partner told us, “Staff are always receptive of my input and follow up anything I suggest.”

The provider did not always accurately or consistently assess people’s ability to make choices of decision. People could not be consistently assured their rights were maintained when receiving care. Although the provider completed assessments of capacity to make decisions, they did not consistently make evidence-based conclusions regarding whether or not a person could make specific decision themselves. However, when identified to the provider they made changes to ensure they reflected people’s abilities to make decisions. We saw other assessments where the best practice had been followed, including planning for future care.