Sense 12 Oakfield Road

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 67 (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 had systems in place for assessing people’s needs, although some strengthening of the process was needed to ensure they were robust.

People’s needs were assessed and these included all aspects of people’s care including health, care, wellbeing and communication needs. Systems for reviewing care records were in place. We saw that people were involved in their annual reviews and family members were supported to attend meetings in person or online. These were opportunities to celebrate what had worked well for people and discuss their future plans and aspirations.

However, care planning records as part of the regular review process were not always accurate or consistent. We found discrepancies between care plans and other documentation relating to people's needs. For example, 1 person's epilepsy rescue plan had not been updated on their care records and there were also inconsistencies in information regarding eating and drinking guidelines. We also found a lack of information on moving and handling risks for 1 person. This meant there was a risk that staff may not have access to accurate information to guide safe and effective care. The link between the effective review process and ongoing care planning process needed to be strengthened.

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.

People’s specific nutrition and hydration requirements were documented within care plans. Care plans provided staff with information about dietary preferences, nutritional risks, fluid intake needs, and any support required with eating and drinking. This included reference to specific guidance such as those requiring an IDDSI diet (International dysphagia diet standardisation initiative.) This guidance focuses on improving safety for people with swallowing risks. We identified inconsistencies for 1 person, these were internal errors and professional assessments had been sought and were contained within the care plan for staff to refer to. In response to the inconsistencies the manager requested an immediate review of the persons eating and drinking risks.

Staff demonstrated awareness of people’s eating and drinking needs and risks. They could share with us where significant improvements had been made for people in relation to eating and drinking. The manager told us they had identified some further improvements were needed to the record keeping of food eaten to strengthen the monitoring in place and work was underway to make these improvements. We saw people were supported to prepare and eat food safely, in accordance with their specific guidelines.

Staff had completed training in specialist areas to ensure they knew what good practice looked like. This included oral health, wound care, skin and pressure care, food allergies and dysphasia.

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 told us they worked well with health and social care professionals with effective communication. This was via various systems and processes which were in place, such as handovers and staff meetings. Records confirmed the service communicated with external professionals. A healthcare professional told us, “I observed staff supporting [person’s name] in a professional and appropriate manner.”

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.

We saw evidence that people were supported to remain active and participate in activities that promoted their physical and emotional wellbeing, in line with their preferences and abilities.

Staff told us how they encouraged people to make informed choices about their nutritional intake and supported them to follow healthy eating practices where appropriate. Care records demonstrated people's health needs were monitored, and support was provided to help them maintain a balanced diet and healthy lifestyle. This person-centred approach promoted independence, wellbeing and positive health outcomes for people using the service.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment, although the systems for this were not always robust.

People’s care plans contained goals and outcomes for people. The staff team and manager were able to describe to us in detail improvements in people’s quality of life.

There was not always robust record keeping which could impact the monitoring of people’s care. Where annual reviews had taken place, people were fully involved in this process, and their achievements were acknowledged and celebrated. Staff could tell us and records showed people were supported to improve their quality-of-life including access to social opportunities and developing new skills.

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

We saw people were treated with respect and supported to live their lives how they chose. A process was in place to carry out mental capacity assessments where required. Assessments had been completed for individual decisions. Where appropriate relatives and professionals were involved with making decisions in people’s best interests.