Rother Valley View

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 under the old provider, we rated this key question good. At this assessment under the new provider 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.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. When people were first referred to the service a full assessment of their needs was completed to ensure they could be met. The senior team spent time working with the person, their relatives and all key stakeholders to ensure they gathered all the relevant information they needed to provide an up-to-date care plan to support people safely. Families told us they had good communication with staff and that they were involved in people’s care plans. One relative said, “We are involved in everything.” Another relative told us, “There was a meeting online and spoke about [name] and what their needs are and what they can and can’t do. I haven’t seen the final care plan yet but was involved in it.” Reviews were completed when needed and care plans and risk assessments were updated accordingly.

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. Systems were in place to ensure staff were up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation. Care records demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance. The provider used ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make sure people were provided with the correct level of care and support. Staff knew people’s care needs and associated risks well. Staff monitored people’s changing needs closely and reported changes to senior staff so appropriate referrals could be made. People were supported to maintain contact with family and friends, and where they had relatives who lived away from the area, they were supported to have telephone contact.

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 Staff had access to information about how to meet people’s specific and diverse needs and received training in how to meet them. This included people’s plans for the future and how they were going to achieve their goals. Staff meetings were held where staff could discuss how they worked with people. The provider worked with other professionals involved in people’s care, where treatment or guidance had been received, this was incorporated into care plans to ensure consistency and joined up care. Information was shared across teams involved in people’s care which also maintained consistency, such as if a person required hospital admission. We received positive feedback from professionals. One professional told us, “I have observed care staff to know my client very well and be able to develop ways to communicate with [person].” Another professional told us, “The service has been responsive to [person’s needs and made several physical adjustments to the property fast in response to the significant challenges the individual poses.”

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. Training and guidance were available for staff in supporting people to manage people’s individual support needs and health conditions. Care records clearly detailed people’s health needs and how staff were to support them. They also set out how to encourage people to maintain their well-being and independence. People were supported to access medical professionals as and when required as well as for routine health appointments. medicines reviews and screening. Timely referrals were made when any issues were noted, for example when a person’s health had deteriorated. One health professional told us, “They ring us with concerns for patients, and we do regular reviews for medication and general reviews and have not had any concerns regarding patient care or safety.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Reviews were timely and included updates when people’s needs changed or if an incident occurred. We saw that 1 person wished to move on and that the manager and staff had supported them to achieve this goal with a detailed transition plan in place. People’s care was routinely monitored and assessed, with consultation with people and their representatives, where appropriate. People’s care plans identified their specific and diverse needs and how they were to be met. These were reviewed and amended when changes in people’s needs and preferences happened. Relatives were positive about improvements they had noted. One told us, “They know [person]. They can predict what [person] is going to do or how [person] is going to be for that day…puts my mind at rest.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. We found the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty. These were kept under review and monitored. People’s capacity and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) in place were included in people’s care plans, including what the DoLS meant when supporting people. Where people required support to make decisions this was documented, including how decisions were made in people’s best interests. Staff received training in the MCA and understood the importance of ensuring that people fully understood what they were consenting to and the importance of obtaining consent before care was delivered. We observed staff offering people choices and checking consent before completing care tasks throughout our visit. People told us they chose what they wanted to do in their lives. We saw staff using various methods of communication to support people to make choices, including the use of Makaton and Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS).