Hoylands 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 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 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. Assessments were completed before support began, and the information gathered was incorporated into care plans. The senior team spent time working with the person, their relatives and all key stakeholders to ensure they gathered all the relevant information they needed to provide an up-to-date care plan to support people safely. Care records were person centred and reflected how a person wished to be supported. Families told us they had good communication with staff and that they were involved in people’s care plans as well as reviews. One relative told us, “I’m well informed of whatever is coming up in [person’s] life.”

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. Systems were in place to ensure staff were up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation. Care records demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance. The provider used ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make sure people were provided with the correct level of care and support. Staff knew people’s care needs and associated risks well. Staff monitored people’s changing needs closely and reported changes to senior staff so appropriate referrals could be made. People were supported to maintain contact with family and friends.

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. Clear communication processes were in place and information was routinely shared through handovers, staff meetings and care records aiding continuity and consistency of care delivery. Overall staff were positive about working together. However, we received some comments that teamwork could be improved which we discussed with the provider who agreed to review and action. The provider was in the process of introducing a new electronic recording system which would allow easier sharing of information to external professionals once established. Professionals who worked with the service were positive about joint working. One professional told us, “The staff know each resident so well and this is reflected in the care they receive and the information they provide us with. It is always a pleasure to liaise with them.”

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. Staff were provided with training and guidance to support people with their individual needs and health conditions. Care records clearly detailed people’s health needs and how staff were to support them. People were supported to attend annual health checks, screening, and primary care services. Staff ensured people routinely attended scheduled health care appointments and had regular check-ups with a range of community health and social care professionals. One relative told us, “Staff are very proactive to [person’s] medical/dental needs.”

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 care plans identified their specific and diverse needs and how they were to be met. These were reviewed and amended when changes in people’s needs and preferences happened. However, some care records were overdue review whilst waiting upload to the new electronic system. The registered manager provided reassurance that plans were in place to address this for those records affected. People’s care was routinely monitored and assessed, with consultation with people and their representatives, where appropriate. One relative told us, “A year ago [Name of registered manager] suggested the Intensive Support Team getting involved and I said yes. We have regular meetings to move forward and to make life better going forward. Can’t fault the support [person] has had.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. The care home was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive people of their liberty (DOLs) where this was deemed necessary to ensure their safety. These were reviewed regularly to ensure they remained appropriate for each person. The service assessed people lacking mental capacity to make certain decisions, and staff clearly recorded assessments and any best interest decisions.Some of these records were pending upload to the electronic system and were overdue review. A plan was in place to address this. Staff had received and understood people’s capacity to make decisions about their care and support they received. We observed staff offering people choices and checking consent before completing care tasks throughout our visit. We saw staff using various methods of communication to support people to make choices, including the use of Makaton and Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS). One staff member told us, “We gain consent by speaking to the residents in their preferred communication e.g. symbols, social stories or speaking to them. I have had training in mental capacity.”