Salutem Supported Living North

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 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.

The provider had effective processes in place to holistically assess people’s needs and preferences prior to admission.

Preadmission assessments were detailed and included input from a wide range of sources including relatives, health professionals and social workers.

Support plans had been reviewed and updated when required. Relatives had been involved in reviews; however, 1 relative said a review was arranged while they were visiting and they would have preferred time to prepare.

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.

Care records were comprehensive and included advice and guidance from other professionals including physiotherapists, dieticians, consultants, and speech and language therapists. Feedback from relatives raised concerns about how well staff followed guidance in relation to food textures. Some clinical assessment tools had been used but it was not always clear what action was taken in response to them. We were assured by the provider this would be addressed.

Some feedback from relatives indicated they did not always feel up to date with health matters; however, they felt able to raise this with leaders.

People were supported to eat and drink enough. People were able to choose what they ate. We saw there were good stocks of food in the 2 tenancies we visited.

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 worked with other agencies to ensure assessments and care plans were holistic and represented people’s needs and preferences. Transitions between services were well managed.

Care records included minutes from reviews with other professionals and input from relatives.

Daily care records were completed in detail by staff throughout the day on the digital devices provided. Relatives were able to review these entries through secure online access.

Staff were completing some delegated tasks in relation to enteral feeding. All staff supporting with this had received appropriate level of training.

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 supported by staff to live healthier lives. People had access to exercise and physical activities. The quality of food people ate was variable; some relatives had been concerned about the lack of fresh meals prepared from scratch.

People had health action plans which identified their needs and preferences. Where people experienced distress when accessing health appointments, support plans detailed how best to minimise the impact of this.

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’s health needs had been regularly monitored. People were supported to access routine health screening appointments. Where people had consultants in relation to their specific medical needs they had been supported to attend regular appointments.

People were supported to achieve positive outcomes; this included a significant reduction in anti-psychotic medicines and improved health through regular exercise.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The provider assessed people’s capacity to consent and make decisions across a broad range of situations, including receiving personal care, taking medicines and accessing the community.

Where people did not have the capacity to consent or decide the provider ensured all decisions were made within the MCA guidance and Best Interest process. Some people had family members as their court appointed deputy, and they were consulted and included in decision making meetings.

Staff understood the importance of consent and were able to describe how they got consent from people. Care records demonstrated how staff approached people and how they responded if the person declined.