Fosse Court

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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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 before they moved to the home. This helped to make sure Fosse Court was the right place for them. Care plans were developed from initial assessments to support staff in providing care which was in accordance with people’s individual needs and preferences. They consulted with the person and their relatives where appropriate to help develop personalised care plans. One staff member told us, “Before a new [person] comes we get a briefing to let us know. We have a document to read to get to know [the person]. Staff are given care plans to get pre knowledge on who they [the person] are.”

Care plan reviews took place on a regular basis or sooner if people’s needs changed. Any changes in people’s care were effectively communicated to staff to ensure people received appropriate care and support.

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.

Staff demonstrated a good knowledge of best practice and how to support people with different needs. They had undertaken a wide range of training, including training about people’s conditions and health needs. Comments from staff included, “I have completed mandatory training in safeguarding, fire safety, first aid, moving and handling, infection control, dementia care, and medication awareness.”

Staff kept clear records of any visits or correspondence with healthcare professionals, documenting the reason for the visit, actions and outcomes. This helped ensure medical advice was followed.

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.

Staff and leaders worked closely with external professionals to ensure care and support was consistent. Information was passed on to staff during meetings to ensure staff were up to date with current information and events. One external partner told us, “Fosse court staff and management are very responsive to any referrals made to them or my counter parts in health. Appropriate information sharing is efficient and responsive.”

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 healthcare professionals which enabled healthcare needs to be effectively managed. Community mental health and learning disability nurses visited regularly to support people with specific needs. One person told us, “The staff support me with attending any healthcare appointments e.g. hospital, dentists and mental health.”

People were supported to live a healthy lifestyle. People told us they enjoyed their food, particularly as it was homemade. One person said, “I like the food at the home it is very tasty. I have tried new Indian foods recently; I had Vegetable curry which was really nice.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to improve it continuously.

People’s care was consistently and systematically monitored, with detailed daily records evidencing regular staff support and ensuring transparency in care delivery. Guidance from health professionals was implemented promptly and reviewed regularly, enabling staff to adapt care plans to maintain and promote individuals’ health. This proactive approach supported early identification of health changes, reduced risks, and ensured care remained aligned with best practice standards.

People benefited from a multidisciplinary team, including clinical staff who provided direct care. Any changes in circumstances or needs were promptly communicated to senior leaders, ensuring timely decisions and effective oversight. Outcomes were continuously improved through coordinated collaboration between professionals, fostering consistency and promoting positive results. An external health professional commented on the impact for one person who was new to the service. They said, “[Person], we can’t believe the positive difference made in the last few weeks.”

The provider maintained a robust system for monitoring care effectiveness, driving continuous improvement. Actions from reviews were implemented and followed up, as confirmed by a social care professional, “Any discussions made in regard to [person] are actioned and followed up.” This commitment to accountability and responsiveness resulted in better quality of care and improved experiences for people.

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

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) establishes the legal framework for decision-making on behalf of individuals who may lack the capacity to make specific decisions themselves. The MCA requires that, wherever possible, individuals are supported to make their own decisions. When a person is assessed as lacking capacity for a particular decision, any decision made on their behalf must be in their best interests and represent the least restrictive option available.

Where individuals were assessed as lacking capacity, mental capacity assessments had been completed; however, these were not always decision specific as required under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. While the assessments demonstrated some involvement of the person and their relatives, they did not consistently reflect the principle that capacity should be assessed in relation to a particular decision at a specific time. Best practice requires that each assessment clearly identify the decision in question and record the steps taken to support the person in making that decision wherever possible.

Staff had completed training on the MCA and demonstrated a clear understanding of its principles. They explained to inspectors how they supported individuals to make their own decisions wherever possible, in line with the MCA’s requirement to promote autonomy. Staff consistently offered choices and sought consent before providing care, which we observed throughout the inspection. Where people required assistance with decision-making, staff were able to articulate how they applied best-interest decision processes and ensured that any actions taken were the least restrictive option.