Wentworth Close

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 good. At this assessment, 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 provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs with them. We were told that before people were admitted to the service, they had opportunities to visit the service, to meet with the other residents and to spend time there so that they could make an informed choice about moving in. A staff member told us this had worked well when a new service user moved to the service. Another staff member told us, “There was a plan, but it was not executed well as care staff from the previous placement were meant to support visits, but this did not happen.” We spoke with the manager about the move, and they told us that from the first visit the service user wanted to move in, so the move happened more quickly than anticipated. The person’s relative and staff all confirmed that the move had been a very positive move for the person. When people’s needs changed a full assessment was carried out to ensure staff could continue to meet people’s changed needs.

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 practice and standards, such as positive behaviour support, guidance on stopping the overmedication of people with a learning disability and the ‘Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture’ statutory guidance.

Each person had a PBS plan that was reviewed regularly. There was a PBS lead within the staff team who received regular advice and support from an organisational PBS lead. The consistency in approach had a positive effect on people’s lives and people were more active in their local communities.

People were supported to choose food and drinks that met their wishes and their nutritional and dietary requirements. Where people were at risk of choking, advice had been sought from the Speech and Language Therapy (SaLT) team and there were guidelines for staff to follow to support people safely with their eating and drinking.

Training records showed staff had completed training courses to enable them support people appropriately with their nutritional needs.

Staff had good working relationships with visiting health professionals. Some people had active involvement from a number of healthcare professionals. Care records included evidence of regular communication with professionals when there were concerns, and that any advice received was followed. A healthcare professional told us, “Staff are diligent in following [organisation name] guidelines. In the event that these have not been followed an incident report is completed.”Another healthcare professional told us, “To the best of my knowledge, guidelines are followed, and continuity of care is first rate.”

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.

It was not evident from people’s records that everyone received regular chiropody or dental treatment. Staff told us this was a recording issue. Following our visits we received confirmation in writing that two people had since attended chiropody appointments, and one person had received a dental appointment visit.

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.

It was not evident from people’s records that everyone received regular chiropody or dental treatment. Staff told us this was a recording issue. Following our visits we received confirmation in writing that two people had since attended chiropody appointments, and one person had received a dental appointment visit.

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

Care plans described how staff should support people to make choices. If people had relatives or professionals who acted on their behalf, this was also clearly recorded. During our visits we observed staff asking permission before providing care. Capacity assessments were completed as appropriate, staff had received training and acted in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff explained things to people in ways they understood, so they could make informed decisions about what they were consenting to. For example, we saw a staff member using a person’s ‘widgit book’ (symbols) with them to assist communication. We saw other staff used short sentences and were consistent in giving the same message to a person who repeatedly asked staff the same question.

Staff knew people and knew when they wanted to participate in an activity or not. A staff member told us that they knew when people did not want to do things. A staff member told us that one person will, “Make grunting noises then they have had enough.” Another staff member told us that a second person will stamp their feet when they do not want to do something.” When people lacked the capacity to make decisions staff had followed the principles of the mental capacity act to ensure decisions were made with those closest to them, were the least restrictive and in their best interest.