Weston Favell Houses

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 62 (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 plans were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them and ensure records provided staff with adequate guidance.

The provider completed pre-admission assessments prior to people moving into the service to ensure people’s needs could be met effectively.

We found that people’s care plans and risk assessments were reviewed regularly although not all dates on the records correlated with each other to assure us of this.

People’s care plans and risk assessments were not always consistent and the most up to date guidance for staff was not always easily identifiable, or available. For example, there was no information in one person’s care plan about how their diagnosis of a learning disability impacted on them.

People were having their nutritional risk assessed monthly and their Body Mass Index (BMI) calculated. However, where the BMI was outside the healthy range, the dietician’s recommendations were not reflected to people’s care plans.

We found different members of the multi-disciplinary team (MDT) were responsible for updating care plans within their areas of responsibility. However, no individual staff member was taking responsibility for the co-ordination, and this had led to some records requiring improvement.

The provider had told us by the end of the assessment the action they had taken to address these findings and assured us this work had commenced.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The provider used nationally recognised evidence-based good practice tools to assess people’s needs. For example, oral health assessments were completed for people as part of their assessment of needs.

A dietician was part of the provider’s multi-disciplinary team (MDT) and assessed people’s nutritional risk monthly, calculated their Body Mass Index (BMI) and formulated recommendations. We found some work was required to reflect the outcome of these assessments with people’s care plans and risk mitigation plans.

The provider demonstrated a commitment to continuously review their assessment tools in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice.

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.

The provider had a multi-disciplinary team (MDT) as part of their community services to assist the support team to provide effective care and support. The MDT was made up of staff from a range of disciplines, including nursing, occupational therapy, physiotherapy and psychology.

We found the MDT met weekly, or as required depending on the needs of the service. People told us the MDT were actively involved in their support, and we found this positively contributed to people’s outcomes.

Although the GP was independent of the care provider they were integrated into the MDT and meant people only had to tell their story once. Staff told us all the provider’s teams worked together to ensure people received the support they needed.

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 actively promoted people to live healthier lives. People told us they were fully involved in meal planning and where suitable, meal preparation. A person told us, “I cook my own meals – sometimes I struggle, but when I do staff will help and support me.”

People had regular medicines reviews, and the service employed a physical health nurse who worked closely with the GP surgery to ensure people’s identified health needs were met. Although the service utilised the expertise of an internal multi-disciplinary team (MDT), when people’s needs changed, referrals to NHS services could also be facilitated through the GP.

People told us and we saw evidence that people were supported to attend other health appointments, for example, dentist and opticians. A person told us, “I went to the opticians not long ago.”

There was information available for people and staff in relation to health promotion. For example, the provider had initiatives to help prevent falls through their eyes and ears. A person told us, “They [staff] help me identify trip hazards.”

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were recorded, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The provider identified people’s goals and desired outcomes as part of their care plans. There was a process in place to evaluate people’s plans and people told us about the outcomes they were achieving at the service. However, records did not adequately reflect these achievements as part of the provider’s care planning evaluation and review process.

We found that some people had a document called ‘taking control of my care’ that helped people consider what was important to them, what they could do for themselves and what support they required from staff. However, more work was required to record what people’s life goals and aspirations were and how these were being achieved.

The provider had already identified work was required in this area and we saw plans were underway to introduce a new initiative called ‘Circle of Support’. This initiative empowers people, enabling them to chair their ‘Circle of Support’ meetings and set their expectations for goals, aspirations and outcomes.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

We found where people were able to consent to care they had signed a consent-to-care agreement.

Mental capacity assessments and best interest meetings had been completed for individual decisions relating to people’s care and treatment. However, we found there was not always evidence of how people had been involved in the assessment of their capacity and the decisions being made were not always specific. For example, one mental capacity assessment we viewed described the decision that was required as ‘ADL care plan’.

Although staff had completed mental capacity training, the provider told us they had identified improvements were needed in relation to the completion of mental capacity assessments and a range of internal and external training had been booked.