Douglas House

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.

We assessed a limited number of quality statements in the effective key question. The scores for this area have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. At this assessment, the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good.

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.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment were effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, well-being, and communication needs with them.

We received mixed feedback from relatives regarding their involvement in assessments and reviews. One relative told us, “There was supposed to be a new care plan, but I haven’t received a copy. It’s very hard to find out anything; it’s always ongoing or under review.” Another commented, “I’ve helped to put it together over the years, I’m happy with that.”

We saw communication care plans with clear information about nonverbal communication and the best way for staff to aid communication. The manager told us how they would visit a possible new person moving into the service and conduct an assessment to ensure the service would be able to meet the needs of the person.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. For example, care plans were not always up to date. Some care plans were not in place regarding 1-1 hours and activities, and we found some care plans contained information that was out of date and no longer applied to the person’s care and treatment.

Whilst we did not identify anyone who had come to harm, this contributed to the breach of regulation in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance.

We received mixed feedback regarding the food at the service. One person told us, “The food here has been rubbish, and we have the same thing over and over again.” Another person told us, “The food is okay. I am a vegetarian and get good options.”

The service was aware of this feedback and had plans to address these concerns. People’s specialised diet needs to reduce the risk of choking were being met, and professional guidance fed into people’s care plans to give staff additional information on how to support people best. A staff member told us, “I took a chap to the Beefeater, and he had half pints of thickened shandy, a mince and moist lasagne, and he beamed the whole day.”

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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

A relative told us, “They always tell him what they are doing and if he is okay with it.” We saw records were in place when a person was deemed as lacking capacity around a specific decision, and these records were in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Some people did not use words to communicate. Staff used visual prompts such as pictures and objects to refer to, to support communication and understanding.