Whitwood 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 promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. The last time this key question was assessed it was rated 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 67 (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 and treatment was effective because they did not consistently review people’s health, care and wellbeing needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed prior to admission to the service. This included people’s health, wellbeing and communication needs. However, people’s care plans were not regularly reviewed and therefore we could not be assured they were up to date and reflective of current needs. In addition, 1 person did not have individualised care plans in place. The provider took action to address this following the first day of assessment. However, some information had still not been included.

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.

Records showed nationally recognised tools and guidance were in use when planning and delivering people’s care. People’s preferences, including what was important and mattered most to them, were consistently incorporated into care delivery. People had enough to eat and drink and menu planning was done collaboratively.

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.

We did not receive any negative feedback from external services and during the assessment we observed information sharing between the service and an external professional. People had hospital passports in place and records showed health professionals were involved in people’s care when required. Staff worked well together as a team to support people, meet their needs and keep them safe.

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 had access to health professionals when needed. For example, the GP and speech and language therapist. Staff told us how they made referrals for people. People’s independence was actively encouraged, and they had a choice regarding what they wanted to do to support their own wellbeing. For example, 1 person accessed social and community activities independently following support and planning with staff. Another person enjoyed gardening and had been supported to grow vegetables.

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

Systems and processes were not always effective in routinely monitoring people’s care and treatment. Oversight was lacking with regards to routine monitoring of health to improve outcomes for people. For example, 3 people’s records showed they were not being weighed in line with their assessed need. In addition, it was not clear whether professional advice was always fully incorporated into care plans. The registered manager told us this would be done as part of monthly reviews. However, we found gaps where reviews were not taking place monthly. People did however have access to health care professionals when required. Referrals were appropriately made and people attended health appointments without delay.

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

The service was working within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). Best interest processes were followed where people lacked capacity to make decisions, and these were care planned. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were appropriately in place when required. Staff sought consent from people prior to providing support.