LANH

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 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 and discuss people’s health, care and wellbeing needs with them. The provider had carried out pre assessments for people before their package of care started. However, there were gaps in some people’s care plans and some information in care plans was not up to date or reflected the person’s current needs. For example, one person’s care plan said they had a significant fracture recently and were to be supported in bed. When we spoke with the provider, they told us the person no longer had this fracture.

The provider used the Waterlow assessment tool however this was also not updated when people’s need changed. For example, one person’s needs had deteriorated, and they were not as mobile, putting them at greater risk of pressure ulcers. The Waterlow tool had not been updated to reflect the increased risk. The Waterlow Tool isa clinical assessment for healthcare professionals to identify people at risk of developing pressure ulcers.

People’s communication needs were assessed effectively, and guidance was in place for staff to follow. For example, one person did not communicate verbally, and the provider ensured that systems were in place to support the person with their preferred communication method, including picture cards. One relative told us, “They’ve [provider] gained a lot of understanding over [person] unique needs and how to communicate with [person], they have the right approach for [person].”

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The provider had not ensured people’s care and support plans were consistent with the detail in relation to people’s capacity and consent. For example, one person’s care plan detailed they gave consent for their care to be provided, however it did not detail if they have capacity to do so. The care plan states they have a cognitive impairment and episodes of confusion, also that if they try to leave the property they are to be supervised. The provider had not ensured that they had documented the person had capacity to consent to their care.

However, other care plans we reviewed, did have information about people’s capacity and their consent to the being provided.

Staff told us they gained consent from people during care delivery and people, and their relatives confirmed this. One relative told us, “They’re [staff] very good, even when cleaning [persons] room, the tap on the door ask if they can clean [persons] room.”