SCC Prison Social Care Team

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,treatmentand support achieved good outcomes and promoteda good qualityof life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been ratedgood.

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

This service scored 79 (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.

People told us they were involved initial and on-going assessments.

The registered manager said they ensured each person was assessed so they would know their needs before providing care. They told us, “Referrals for support are received by a number of sources, such as self-referrals, referrals from the local authority or the prison service. Following a triage process, a decision is made to visit the person and undertake an assessment of their needs, to establish if these can be met.”

Assessments were detailed and contained all aspects of the person and the care they required, including their health and medical conditions. They also highlighted how the person needed to be supported, including their preferences and wishes. Support plans were developed from the initial assessment.

The provider always 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. They worked to develop evidence-based good practice and standards.

The support people received from these services enabled them to have their needs met and improve their lives. For example, one person was referred to the OT following concerns about their ability to manage daily living tasks independently within the prison environment. During the initial meeting the person had expressed that they felt fearful in prison, partly due to their age, communication barriers, cognitive difficulties and reduced mobility. This placed the person at increased risk of self‑neglect, falls, and difficulty accessing essential services.

An OT assessment was completed to assess their environment, the person’s functional abilities and support needs. The assessment explored mobility, cognition, personal care, domestic tasks, and emotional wellbeing. As a result, a range of interventions were put in place to support the person’s independence and safety. This included twice weekly support with showering, prompting and supervision. Equipment including a shower stool, shoehorn, and a grab rail was provided to reduce physical strain and improve safety. Visual prompts were placed in the person’s cell to remind them of hygiene routines such as handwashing and cleaning after toileting. Referrals were made to healthcare, mental health services, optometry, and audiology to explore underlying causes of their cognitive and sensory difficulties.

Another person who was on the Autistic spectrum displayed hoarding behaviours. Any attempt to support them to declutter their cell resulted in high anxiety. The staff used a 5-choice method (Keep–use, Keep–store, Dispose, Donate, Not sure).This framework enabled the person to guide each session, choosing how they wished to approach decluttering tasks, while also benefiting from a consistent and supportive structure. The ‘Not sure’ option allowed the person the time and space to reflect without feeling pressured, reducing anxiety and promoting engagement. This method enabled the person to build confidence in decision-making while maintaining dignity, control and ownership over their environment.

The provider always worked well across teams and services to support people. They shared thorough assessments of people’s needs when they moved between different services, so people only needed to tell their story once.

The staff worked closely with other agencies to provide support to people. These included the prison social care team, occupational therapists and social workers. All efforts were made to meet people’s needs to enhance their wellbeing and reduce any discomfort they may have. For example, one person needed to elevate their legs to reduce swelling. They requested for their TV to be positioned in front of them rather than on the side so they could watch this whilst resting on the bed. The OT was due to visit them with a support worker to review the room layout and reposition the bed and furniture where possible.

Some people had a learning disability or were autistic. They received additional support from the prison’s neurodiversity team. For example, one person had put in an application to work in the prison. It was decided that the neurodiversity team would support with making reasonable adjustments to enable them to engage fully in work within the prison.

People told us staff worked well together and communicated with them well to meet their needs. The service worked well with other external professionals to meet the needs of people when this was required.

The staff told us they worked well together and enjoyed their work. Their comments included, “We respond very quickly when people need support. We are considered reliable and approachable” and another said, “One person became disabled. We assessed jointly, we fought to get them in a rehab facility. I sat with [them] while [they] had physio and when [they] came back to the prison, [they were] mobile” and “We are trauma informed. I don’t judge any of them and listen. Let them express themselves.”

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.

People told us the staff knew their health needs and met these. Support plans contained detailed information about people’s health conditions and how these might impact them. The staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs and how to meet these. The staff reported any concerns in relation to people’s health, and these were addressed appropriately.

The staff were able to access training specific to the healthcare needs of people they supported, such as diabetes, epilepsy, Parkinson’s disease and dementia. This helped them understand these conditions and meet the needs of people. In addition, staff were supported to undertake the Oliver McGowan training. This training aims to provide the social care and health workforce with the right skills and knowledge to provide safe, compassionate, and informed care to autistic people and people with a learning disability.

The provider monitored all people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they fully met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People were happy with the care they received and trusted the staff. They told us their needs were reviewed regularly, and the staff were responsive to their needs. For example, one person who was visually impaired shared that they were unable to see due to the prison lighting, struggled to read text and had difficulty maintaining their environment. As a result, the provider made a referral to a specialist agency for an assessment to take place and for equipment to be explored.

Following the assessment, recommendations were made for equipment to support the person, such as a lamp, glasses and a coloured mat. The provider engaged in a discussion with the prison to gain authorisation for the recommended equipment. The prison agreed for this equipment to be in place as a reasonable adjustment. In addition, support with care was implemented twice a week to support the person to maintain their environment and assist them with correspondence. The registered manager told us, “[Person] has engaged well with the support and has built a good rapport with the staff.”

There was evidence of regular reviews and action being taken immediately following any changes to people’s health needs. The service worked closely with healthcare professionals who knew people well and followed their advice to help meet people’s changing needs.

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

The provider was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People told us staff asked for their consent and involved them in decisions about their care and support.

All the people receiving support had capacity and were able to consent to their care and make decisions about the support they received.

The staff received training on the principles of the MCA. They told us they always sought consent before supporting people. People who used the service had the capacity to make decisions and were supported accordingly.