78 Hoylake Crescent

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 rating for this key question was good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 58 (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 assessed people’s needs before they moved to the service. They developed care plans based on these assessments. People told us they had been consulted and were able to share their views.

The provider did not always deliver evidence-based care. Staff did not always demonstrate a good understanding about best practice. Staff were required to undertake training about people with a learning disability and autistic people. Records showed that whilst staff had completed online training, some staff had done this in less than 5 minutes, with 1 staff member completing 3 different modules in this subject in less than 1 minute. Similarly, staff did not have skills or training to understand about best practice supporting people with mental health needs. This meant that people living at the service were at risk of unsafe and inappropriate care.

Staff did not always have access to care plans, risk assessments and guidance. This meant they did not always know about people’s individual needs or how these should be met.

The provider did not always operate effective systems for staff to communicate with each other. Staff told us there was not always a handover between shifts or time for this. They said they used a messaging service to communicate with other staff and managers. Records at the service were not well organised and it was difficult for staff to view information about people’s needs or the support they required.

People were supported with their health needs. Managers had created care plans to show how people should be supported with health conditions. Staff supported people to attend healthcare appointments. People told us they were able to see GPs and other health professionals when needed.

Staff did not always support people to develop meaningful goals and work towards these. People met with key staff to discuss their care. However, these discussions did not include monitoring of personal objectives and goals.

Staff monitored people’s physical wellbeing and liaised with other professionals to help ensure people remained physically well. They also monitored for any deterioration in people’s mental health and involved other professionals when needed.

The provider had not always obtained people’s consent for some restrictive practices because they had locked 1 person’s en-suite shower room and toilet against their wishes. Staff did not always offer people choices about meals or how these were presented. Some people, who had been assessed as having the mental capacity to decide where they lived, told us they did not want to continue to live at the service. They told us they had discussed this with their social workers.

Nevertheless, the provider had asked people to consent to their care. People confirmed they were able to make choices about this, and staff asked for their consent and permission when supporting them. People had seen copies of their care plans and had signed their consent to these.

The provider had requested legal authorisation when people had been assessed as lacking mental capacity to make decisions about their care.