Langley View Residential Home Also known as Langley View

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. 

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 had their needs fully assessed, where possible prior to them moving into Langley View. This was to make sure it was the right environment for them to move into. The information from the assessment was used to inform the care plan in relation to what support they required. The assessment considered people’s physical and mental health as well as any sensory and or communication needs. People were involved as much as possible in determining how and when they wanted to be supported. Staff supported people to help maintain their independence, for example, when supporting people with their personal care, people were encouraged to manage as much of their own personal care as they were able. People’s care was kept under regular review to ensure the care continued to meet their needs.  

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 worked in line with the principles of evidence-based good practice. This included working in partnership with other professionals to provide holistic care and support to people. Staff had completed specialist Oliver McGowan training to help ensure they have a good understanding of the needs of autistic people and people with a learning disability. Health care decisions were made based on combining the best available scientific and clinical information and considering people’s individual values and preferences. Peoples care was monitored to ensure it was still relevant to their needs.  

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 worked in partnership with health and social care professionals to help ensure people received seamless care. When people were receiving support from other professionals, for example, occupational therapists or physiotherapists, there was clear guidance in place to ensure staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities. Staff communicated effectively with other services. Staff demonstrated they worked well as a team to deliver safe and effective care.   

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. People were encouraged to keep healthy for example to remain as mobile and active as they could and to choose healthy food options. People were supported to make their own shopping list and go to the shops supported by staff. Where possible people were encouraged to help with the preparation of meals for themselves or for all people living there. People could choose what they wanted to eat, and snacks were readily available. People were encouraged and supported to participate in hobbies or things they enjoyed doing.       

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. People were supported to work towards achieving goals. This included assisting people to do as much for themselves as opposed to doing tasks for them. For example, supporting people to do their own personal care. This helped people remain independent. People were supported to attend health care appointments regularly. This included sight and hearing checks as well as dental check-ups to help maintain their wellbeing.   

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People were asked to sign their care plan if they were able to give consent to their care. Those people who were unable to sign consent had an explanation on the consent form for example due to poor vision or limited decision-making capacity. Staff were able to describe how to request people’s consent before assisting them. Consent was kept under regular review. Staff were aware that people had the right to refuse care or part of their care and always checked with people before supporting them with their care.  

At the previous inspection people's capacity was not always assessed, and this meant their liberty may have been compromised. During the current inspection we saw that people had mental capacity assessments completed to determine if they needed support to help make important decisions. This ensured people's rights were protected, and they were not deprived of their liberty. Information was shared with other professionals only on a need-to-know basis. The breach had been met.

This service scored 71 (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 had their needs fully assessed, where possible prior to them moving into Langley View. This was to make sure it was the right environment for them to move into. The information from the assessment was used to inform the care plan in relation to what support they required. The assessment considered people’s physical and mental health as well as any sensory and or communication needs. People were involved as much as possible in determining how and when they wanted to be supported. Staff supported people to help maintain their independence, for example, when supporting people with their personal care, people were encouraged to manage as much of their own personal care as they were able. People’s care was kept under regular review to ensure the care continued to meet their needs.  

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.

he 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 worked in partnership with health and social care professionals to help ensure people received seamless care. When people were receiving support from other professionals, for example, occupational therapists or physiotherapists, there was clear guidance in place to ensure staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities. Staff communicated effectively with other services. Staff demonstrated they worked well as a team to deliver safe and effective care. 

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. People were encouraged to keep healthy for example to remain as mobile and active as they could and to choose healthy food options. People were supported to make their own shopping list and go to the shops supported by staff. Where possible people were encouraged to help with the preparation of meals for themselves or for all people living there. People could choose what they wanted to eat, and snacks were readily available. People were encouraged and supported to participate in hobbies or things they enjoyed doing.  

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. People were supported to work towards achieving goals. This included assisting people to do as much for themselves as opposed to doing tasks for them. For example, supporting people to do their own personal care. This helped people remain independent. People were supported to attend health care appointments regularly. This included sight and hearing checks as well as dental check-ups to help maintain their wellbeing. 

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People were asked to sign their care plan if they were able to give consent to their care. Those people who were unable to sign consent had an explanation on the consent form for example due to poor vision or limited decision-making capacity. Staff were able to describe how to request people’s consent before assisting them. Consent was kept under regular review. Staff were aware that people had the right to refuse care or part of their care and always checked with people before supporting them with their care.  

At the previous inspection people's capacity was not always assessed, and this meant their liberty may have been compromised. During the current inspection we saw that people had mental capacity assessments completed to determine if they needed support to help make important decisions. This ensured people's rights were protected, and they were not deprived of their liberty. Information was shared with other professionals only on a need-to-know basis. The breach had been met.