The Piers

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 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 service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s care plans included their health, wellbeing and communication needs, including how to support people to maintain their independence. A key worker system was in place. Care plans were reviewed regularly, with relatives involved in the process. Staff were informed whenever changes were made.

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.

Staff and the registered manager knew people as individuals and how to support them effectively.

The menu was based on people’s preferences and if they did not wish to eat the planned meal, they were able to choose an alternative meal. People were involved in creating the shopping list, food shopping and preparing meals.

People’s nutrition and hydration needs were assessed and met. When required, people were referred to the speech and language therapist (SALT). SALT undertake assessments of swallowing or communication difficulties for people with medical, neurological and surgical conditions.

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.

Staff had access to the information they needed to assess, plan and deliver people’s care. The service used an electronic recording and planning system. This meant people’s information was easily accessible to staff.

Care plans included information about people’s health conditions, and appointments and discussions with healthcare professionals were recorded on the service’s electronic system.

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.

The service was responsive to changes in people’s health and supported them to access health appointments. Care plans detailed how to involve people with their wellbeing and how to support them to reduce their anxiety during health appointments. People were encouraged and supported to make healthier dietary choices to help promote and maintain their health.

The service 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 electronic recording system used by the service supported oversight of people’s records. Staff knew people well and worked as a team to achieve positive outcomes. Any changes in people’s needs or important information were discussed at handovers, supervisions and team meetings. This meant staff had access to the most up to date information relating to people’s care and support.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff were observed supporting people to make choices using communication methods detailed within their care plans. People and relatives told us staff promoted people to make their own choices.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act. A clear process was in place to carry out mental capacity assessments when required and assessments had been completed for individual decisions. Care was planned in the person’s best interests, in the least restrictive way and in consultation with those important to them.