Archived: 1 & 2 Flax Cottages

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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good.

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

People’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and their relatives were confident people’s care needs were being met, and that they had been involved in care planning. One relative said, “The care is stable, and they are on the phone if anything changes.” Another said, “I’m regularly involved in reviews of their care. I like to be involved as I am their next of kin and I have no issues with that side of things.”

External professionals had a good amount of confidence in staff. They felt there were areas for improvement in terms of staff being able to confidently identify when further input from clinicians might be required and what should be managed on site. They did not however have concerns and felt this was a learning process for staff, who were going through leadership and cultural change.

The provider used a range of tools to assess people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Some care records needed improvement in terms of person-centred detail. They had yet to have key information added to the electronic care records system – the acting manager was reviewing care records prior to, during and after our visit, and was aware of this.

Other care records were suitably detailed and updated at the point of care being delivered. This meant the acting manager and others could review and audit them.

People’s nutrition and hydration needs were met.

Where there was external input to people’s care needs, this advice was accessible, and staff had regard to it.

Staff worked well together. They strove to give people a consistent level of care.

People and relatives raised no concerns about staff interactions or their ability to communicate well with people and external professionals.

External professionals were generally positive about the staff team, particularly the carer workers and senior carers. One said, “Generally, I do believe the care is very good for the people that live at Flax Cottages. Carers know their likes and dislikes and liaise with family members where appropriate.” Another said, “The team leads are clear about their role and how new staff need to be supported in order to be competent. They contact us when they have queries.”

The provider had a range of range of policies informed by good practice, which set out staff responsibilities.

Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Referrals where people may need more support with eating and drinking had not always been made promptly in the past. The acting manager and area manager were aware of this and had worked well with external professionals to review this process and the relationship. Staff, the acting manager and area manager liaised well with external professionals.

The provider ensured people had regular health checks in place, and hospital passports. These meant hospital staff would have a better understanding of people’s communication and other needs, should they need to go to hospital.

People were happy with the range of meals they enjoyed at the service, with one person saying, “The food is smashing.”

People had recently been invited to take up swimming, and some people enjoyed walks outside.

People and relatives were happy with the service provided, and felt staff monitored people’s needs well. The acting manager had stayed in touch with people and families regularly to ensure needs were well monitored. Staff confirmed they had sufficient time to update records. The acting manager had begun to regularly review the systems and processes in the service to determine where improvements could be made. They communicated well with other leaders and external professionals to ensure they understood the information they reviewed.

An effective system was not fully in place which evidenced how the principles of the MCA were followed, and people’s rights were upheld.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. Staff had received training regarding the MCA and policies were in line with the principles of the MCA. Processes had not always adhered to the principles of the MCA. For instance, for one person for whom a restrictive practice was in place, there had been no formal best interests decision made. The acting manager rectified this and agreed to review other arrangements. Because care planning was not always up to date, staff were not always fully equipped with the most up to date person-centred information to inform how people who lacked capacity may like to be treated.

People were supported to have control over day-to-day choices. Staff respected people’s independence and rights. People and families were involved in core decisions about their care from the outset.