Sapphire House

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 promoteda good qualityof 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.

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 had their needs assessed prior to their admission to the service. The provider would then determine if they could safely meet these needs. The provider worked closely with other health and social care professionals during the assessment process.

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. All assessments and ongoing reviews of care were carried out with the input of the people they concerned, should they wish to be involved. Staff had access to guidance and resources which aimed to promote high quality care and treatment. One visiting professional commented, ‘At the review the conversation flowed both ways and included the [person who used the service], and [they] came and went as [they] pleased, which did not appear to worry anyone, and the communication between them was very good, positive and interactive.’

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. People had hospital passports. These contained important information for other health and social care professionals to be aware of should the person need to access their services. Feedback from social care professionals was very positive and praised the proactive, honest and open communication from the service.

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 supported people to attend a variety of health appointments. Care plans contained clear information about people’s health conditions and outlined tailored support on how to manage them. One person had recently been on a highly successful weight loss programme and staff had actively supported them in this and celebrated their achievements towards their goal. The manager told us they advocated for the people who used the service when they were at risk of losing access to health services due to refusing to attend appointments. These refusals were put in context, so other healthcare services had a deeper understanding and did not penalise them for missing appointments or taking additional time.

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. There was ongoing review of people’s goals and achievements within care plans. Each person had an ‘Engaging Moments’ folder which highlighted achievements, such as one person deciding they wished to learn how to sew and who had been supported to make their own clothes. Other records documented holidays and all three people who used the service taking part in a First Aid workshop where they learned how to do cardio-pulmonary resuscitation.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People’s capacity to be able to consent to aspects of their care and treatment had been assessed. Capacity assessments were detailed and ensured people’s capacity was recorded, even if it fluctuated or they were only able to understand a part of what was proposed. Where people had been judged to have capacity to give consent, we saw records relating to their right to make unwise decisions. Staff accepted their choices whilst putting plans in place to help them make more healthy or sensible choices should they wish to in the future. For example, one person made unhealthy choices in one aspect of their life. The assessment acknowledged their right to do this, but an additional care need was identified, and the person had granted staff permission to support them to change their behaviour. This change had taken place over time and there was a positive impact on their life.

Where people were judged not to have capacity to consent to certain aspects of their care, decisions were taken according to a structured process and in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.