Petunia Grove - Macclesfield

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 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 as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 79 (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.

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.

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.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The provider always carefully explained to people what their rights around consent were, made sure they fully understood them and always fully respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff were committed to supporting people to make their own decisions where possible by providing appropriate information and communication. They sought to obtain people’s consent where appropriate, as well as advocating on their behalf where necessary.

Positive examples were seen of Mental Capacity Act (MCA) assessments being completed in accordance with best practice guidance, ensuring decision-making processes were person-centred and in line with legal requirements. For example, where sensor equipment was used to reduce risks to a person, the person had been fully involved, understood why this was beneficial and signed their consent for its use.

In another example, staff demonstrated exceptionally strong practice. They promoted and upheld a person's rights when a healthcare professional initially assumed the person lacked capacity to consent to a health procedure, without undertaking an appropriate assessment. Staff advocated for them and ensured an appropriate MCA assessment was undertaken. Staff provided information in an accessible way, allowing the person time to understand, consider and reflect on the information. To further support this, they involved of a nurse practitioner, who worked with the person to aid their understanding of the procedure. As a result, the person was appropriately assessed and found to have the capacity to understand and provide informed consent. Staff raised their concerns with the health care provider about this example, demonstrating their commitment to support learning. A relative told us, “Any time a medical decision or big decision is needed, they have a great process to help him understand and they write it all out.”

Staff had worked proactively with partner agencies to review people’s needs following a recent Court ruling relating to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). They had focused on ensuring people were supported in the least restrictive way. People were either able to provide consent or (under the new ruling) were not subject to a deprivation of liberty, meaning DoLS authorisations were no longer required. Feedback from relatives demonstrated they were involved in this process. One relative told us, “I was most impressed when [relative] didn’t need a DoLS anymore. They did it so sensitively and it (the assessment) was really personal to him.”