Townsend Hub

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 people’s needs were not always met.

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 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 were assessed promptly when they arrived at the service. Care plans documented people’s health conditions, including diabetes, catheter care, and falls risk. However, this information was not consistently recorded in a person-centred manner, and most care plans lacked sufficient detail. Staff worked with hospital teams and families to gather relevant information. People told us they felt their needs were understood, and we saw evidence of referrals to district nurses and physiotherapists.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. However, catheter care and consent was not always delivered in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Staff monitored people’s blood pressure and escalated concerns to GPs promptly. People told us they received the support they needed and were encouraged to join activities. However, some care plans lacked real-time updates, which could affect consistency of care.

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. We observed an example of a daily meeting were each person’s required need was discussed, including their progress with their reablement journey, which evidenced a strong joined up approach to care. Staff worked well together and communicated effectively. People and relatives described staff as “supportive” and “kind.” We observed good teamwork during mealtimes and personal care. Staff liaised with external professionals, such as community matrons and GPs, to ensure people’s health needs were met. One professional told us, “The staff are able to undertake observations when needed, and they contact me promptly.” This helped maintain continuity of care.

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 were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing. People requiring specialised diets were catered for, and staff encouraged participation in social activities. People told us they enjoyed games and events, and relatives said staff promoted independence.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. For example, monitoring of food and fluid intake for people with diabetes and for people who had catheters was inconsistent, which we raised with the provider.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. The provider did not always ensure consent was clearly documented. Capacity assessments were sometimes incomplete or lacked detail about specific decisions, such as dietary modifications or catheter care. The DoLS tracker was up to date but did not specify what capacity was lacking for each person. For example, this could lead to confusion about whether staff should enforce dietary changes under best interests or respect people’s choice. We raised these concerns with the provider during the inspection.