Webb 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. 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.

People's health, social and emotional needs were assessed before coming to live at the service. The managers worked closely with people’s relatives and assigned professionals to gather an in-depth knowledge and understanding of the person. The assessment process continued over a period of planning for admission and a transition plan supported staff to tailor an individual approach that met the person’s unique needs. A visiting professional was positive about how the managers ensured the assessment process was full and robust when planning an admission to the service. “They have planned lots of visits for the family to spend time with them, to discuss the specific individual needs and requirements.”

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 were given training which followed best practice guidance. Staff told us they worked with health and social care professionals to ensure referrals were made and any recommendations were acted upon. For example, people’s ability to eat safely and maintain a healthy weight were assessed and monitored with appropriate action taken. Staff were knowledgeable regarding people’s nutritional requirements, and this was clearly recorded to ensure all changes were shared. Information was available in the kitchen to ensure people received appropriate food and drinks. Nutritional risk assessments were used along with food and fluid charts to monitor people’s intake, which allowed staff to provide support and encouragement to people who were either struggling to eat and drink sufficiently or who had increased appetites, to maintain their health.

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.

Feedback from visiting health and social care professionals was very positive about how staff worked with them to improve and maintain people’s health. One told us, “The management team has been consistent and responsive and communicates well with professionals and families. Staff respond effectively to feedback and changes and make appropriate referrals.”

Relatives were also positive on how staff worked with health professionals. One told us, “In recent years they have had a few health problems, staff are always quick to react and keep us informed of their progress.”

The managers had formed good working relationships with a wide variety of health and social care professionals to support collective and collaborative working.

The provider supported people to manage their health and well-being 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 to attend the hospital or GP for any consultation, review or investigation. One person told us, “Staff take me to all my appointments.”

Relatives were confident with how health needs were responded to. One told us, “They kept them fed as well as they possibly could, plenty of fluids and managed all their medication with the right medical help. Over time we as a family have seen them bloom, put on a bit of weight and truly respond to certain members of staff.” People were fully supported. One person told us, “Staff take me to all my appointments.”

Staff knew people well and responded to people’s changing health needs. During the assessment staff raised some concerns about one person’s presentation. Saying they were just ‘not themselves’ this was taken up by the registered manager for further investigation. Staff managed known health issues well. For example, ensuring appropriate health appointments were attended. One person had been supported to lose weight with a healthier diet, this in turn had prevented an ongoing concern with Diabetes improving health outcomes.

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.

Feedback from relatives was positive and told us about improved outcomes in respect of people’s health with the support provided by staff. One described how a person’s level of interaction and well-being had improved immensely. “One day I witnessed her really laughing and making happy sounds whilst joining in with the craft session. She likes to watch people and gains stimulation from observing.”

Care and support was under constant review by people staff and relatives. People had a comfortable rapport with staff and shared how they were feeling with staff. Staff knew people well and were able to detect subtle changes in people’s presentation which supported early interventions to make sure people received the best possible care.

Anyone’s view and feedback on people’s health was taken into account and responded to. Relatives told us they felt listened to. Records confirmed health and care needs were monitored and recognised tools of measurement were used. For example, the use of Waterlow scores, a process to measure people’s susceptibility to developing pressure sores. Some people were at risk of constipation and bowel movements were monitored closely to inform any additional medication or medical support that was needed.

Care records included information on medical appointments and interventions from health and social care professionals. Relatives and health professionals told us that staff knew people well and knew and understood any medical support needed.

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

We saw and heard staff offering choices and options to people throughout the assessment visit. It was clearly part of the everyday practice to ask and involve people in everything. People told us they were always consulted and given choices. They gave examples of being asked what they wanted to do during the day. “I am asked about everything and can say what I want to do.” Tools were used to support and encourage people’s choices, this included pictures for those who did not communicate verbally.

Staff understood the importance of gaining people’s consent before completing any personal support intervention. For example, we heard a staff member asking for consent to support a person with their shave. This was completed in an individual personal way ensuring the consent was agreed and understood.

When people lacked the capacity to make decisions staff had followed the principles of the mental capacity act to ensure decisions were made with appropriate representation, were the least restrictive and in their best interest.