House of the Flame Lily

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 changed to requires improvement.

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

The provider was in breach of the legal regulations relating to people’s capacity and consent.

This service scored 54 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective.

We saw there were some assessments completed with people and families where appropriate, before they started using the service. These assessments were used to create a care plan that met people’s assessed needs; however, we could not be assured these assessments were always effectively used to deliver consistent care as some people did not always have accurate and up to date care plans in place that reflected all their needs.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

As reported throughout this report, right support, right care, and right culture guidance were not always fully considered. The provider did not evidence that they followed other evidence-based guidance specifically for people with learning disabilities. When people had a diagnosis of autism or a learning disability, there was not always guidance in place related to this. This placed people at risk of not always receiving care and support that met their needs or promoted good health and well-being outcomes.

Staff appeared unaware when people had a diagnosis of autism or a learning disability and were not always able to demonstrate what this may mean for the people they supported.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people.

There was a system in place to ensure the staff team worked together. They shared information about people both verbally and in the form of notes. Staff told us they felt this was effective and helped them support people.

The provider supported people to manage their health needs.

Staff were aware of people’s health needs and the support they may need.

People’s health needs were assessed, and plans were in place to monitor these conditions, where needed. People had access to health professionals when needed.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it.

The system in place to monitor people’s care was not always effective as care plans and risk assessments were not always reflective of people’s needs, reviewed or up to date.

The provider did not always work within the principles of The Mental Capacity Act 2005.

There were capacity assessments in place for people when there was no evidence to show they could not consent to their care. For other people, when they had a diagnosis which may mean they could not consent to their care, capacity assessment had been completed. These did not state the nature of the decision that was being assessed. It was unclear from the information what the outcome of this assessment was. Where an explanation of the answer to a question was required, we found these sections were blank. This meant we were unable to ascertain if people had capacity to make decisions about their care to assess if the Mental Capacity Act was being complied with.

Leaders were unable to fully demonstrate they understood the process to follow and spoke about other professionals taking the lead in this area. This was not in line with how capacity assessments should be completed.

There was no evidence to show how decisions had been made in people’s best interests.