Doncaster Community Support

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

The service was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to consent. Improvements were found at this assessment and the service was no longer in breach of this regulation.
 

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. People’s needs were assessed when they began receiving support from the provider and at regular intervals. People were involved in reviews about their support and assisted staff in devising their support plans. Support plans were personalised and reflected people’s needs and aspirations. They contained necessary information to support staff in delivering appropriate support. People told us staff spoke with them about their support.

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. People had access to healthcare professionals. Staff worked well as a team and took onboard advise from professionals to improve people's well-being. One person told us how staff had supported them with their dietary requirements and how healthier options had changed their life and outcomes. They were now engaged in activities and enjoyed a full and active life.

The provider 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 information they needed to assess, plan and provide support. Where people moved between services, information accompanied them to ensure continuity of care. Prior to people moving in to supported living services, they were able to visit for tea or stay overnight to ensure a safe and appropriate transition took place. Staff told us they used communication books to ensure information was passed on between shifts. The provider had a ‘better together’ information pack for family and friends. This was written in consultation with families and provided information they need to know about Mencap services, and how they could work together.

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. Staff and leaders identified risks to people’s health and well being and took action to promote positive outcomes and prevent further deterioration. People attended regular health check-ups such as GP and dental appointments. Support plans reflected advice given by external healthcare professionals. People had detailed health passports in place which gave important information about the person. For example, one person had a passport which stated in red that they had epilepsy and had rescue medicines. One relative said, “They [staff] keep me well informed of all changes. [Family member] is under the epilepsy services and they have started to reduce [family member’s] medication which is working well.”

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. Staff and leaders told us they held person centred reviews with people, their families and friends to ensure their aspirations and goals were monitored and kept under review. One relative said, “They [staff] manage [family member’s] diet well and they have limitations to [family member’s] access to food to protect their health and wellbeing.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. We found the provider had improved in this area and were no longer in breach of regulation. People were consulted with and consent was obtained. Where people lacked capacity, decisions were made in people’s best interests. For example, 1 person had a MCA in place regarding being 'free to leave.' This considered what decision was being made and whether the person understood the risks involved. It also identified areas of concern and why the mental capacity assessment was required to take place. We also saw other examples of MCA and best interest decisions, including potential risk of scalding from hot drinks.