Wasdale Court

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

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.

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. Most people had lived at the service for a long time and there were assessments in place which described their needs.

Some person-centred reviews had been completed, and further reviews were planned to ensure the service had a current picture of people’s needs and wishes.

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, people’s weights were not taken correctly or consistently to ensure appropriate follow-up actions could be taken when there were concerns about a person’s weight or nutrition. People’s fluid intake was not properly monitored. Records did not demonstrate fluids were regularly offered, there were no fluid totals and no identified actions when fluid intake was low. This presented a risk people wouldn’t receive the right support with their fluid and hydration needs.

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 closely together as a team; support workers could approach seniors for extra advice and support and on-call arrangements were in place. Information about people’s needs were shared with other organisations transparently and professionals confirmed their input was sought. A professional fed back, “The service does seem to encourage a wider approach involving other professionals”. Records of multi-professional meetings were maintained.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. People who used the service were not always involved in discussions about their health and well-being, exploring with them what they wanted to achieve. Records did not consistently demonstrate people had been given a choice, for example with their food. The provider did not have the dates for some people’s past health appointments including the dentist and opticians. These were in the process of being arranged but this had not been completed in a timely way. People had an annual health check-up, and their medications reviewed.

The provider did not 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 the expectations of people themselves. Records did not demonstrate people had been included in discussions about their goals and what they wanted to achieve, both on a short-term and long-term basis.

However, information was available about people’s needs alongside their strengths and abilities. People’s relatives were included in discussions about their care, but some noted they would appreciate more regular communication.

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 had not ensured records were in place to demonstrate people had given consent about their care and support in line with the principles of Mental Capacity Act (2005). Mental capacity assessments for specific restrictions had started to be introduced but some remained outstanding. Staff completed training in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

Staff explained the importance of seeking consent. For example, one staff member told us, “During personal care, I ensure windows are closed, I always ask consent, I tell them I am closing windows and doors. I always tell them what we are doing it and why, so they know what is going in”.