Archived: The Leys

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 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Overall, 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 needs had been assessed and planned for. People had been living at The Leys for many years and were supported by staff who knew them well and could tell us how they met people’s current needs consistently.

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. For example, people had hospital passports in place which contained concise easy to read information about people’s health, care and communication needs.

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. Records showed people had been supported to access external health professionals, for example to review their memory at the memory clinic. Memory clinics provide assessment of people’s overall brain health. A relative said, “[Relative] has regular dental check-ups. The staff sort all this out, it’s brilliant.”

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 health action plans in place which evidenced their health needs had been monitored, and they were up to date with all routine health check-ups. A relative said, “My [relative] has [name of health condition] and the staff know exactly what to do and act quickly. We’re satisfied with their response.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent. The provider had systems in place to monitor areas such as medicines safety, staffing levels, accidents and people’s nutritional needs. Where shortfalls were identified we saw the provider planned and acted on these.

Where people were unable to make decisions for themselves, the provider had carried out mental capacity assessments, but these did not always contain accurate information. For example, one person’s assessment stated the provider had used a communication aid to support them to assess the person’s capacity; however, this would not have been appropriate. Although improvement was needed to ensure mental capacity assessments were always accurate, we did not find evidence that this had negatively impacted people. In response, the provider told us they would review these assessments. Where people needed to be deprived of their liberty, appropriate authorisation had been sought.