St Anne's 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

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 remained good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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 nutrition and hydration needs were assessed and formed part of their care plan.People’s diets were personalised. For example, bite sized or finger food for specific meals.

People received care, treatment and support that was evidence-based and in line with good practice standards. When required, people’s weight and fluid intake were monitored and recorded on the provider’s electronic system.

The provider had an oversight of people’s MUST scores.

Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) is a standard check used to see if an adult is at risk of being under-nourished. Higher MUST scores mean a person is at risk of malnutrition. Where people's MUST scores indicated people were at increased risk of malnutrition, the provider monitored their weight weekly. This supported to reduce the risk of malnutrition and supported people's overall health.

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.

People confirmed they were included in decision making process.

Records showed MCA assessments and Best Interest decisions had been completed for individual decisions.

Staff received training in relation to the MCA and had a working understanding of the MCA and the importance of gaining consent from people. Staff members confirmed they always presumed people had capacity to make their own decisions.

A staff member said, “I would first try to explain what I am doing in a way the person can understand and give them time to respond. I would encourage them to participate as much as possible and maintain their dignity and privacy. If they lack capacity for that particular decision, I would follow their care plan and any best-interest decision that has been made.”

Where necessary, people with legal authority or responsibility can make decisions within the requirements of the MCA. The provider improved their overview of documentation of who can lawfully act on person’s behalf.