Vermuyden Care

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.

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’s needs were assessed before they received a service and were reviewed regularly, and as their needs changed.

People confirmed they were part of their assessment and reviews. All relatives confirmed their loved ones had been involved in their assessment. One relative added, “We decided how they would do things” One person said, “Yes, I was asked what support I needed.” They added, “Someone came around and did a review.” Another person said, “They review it every year.”

The provider planned 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 dietary needs, including cultural needs, and preferences were assessed and planned for.

We asked people if care staff had skills they needed to support them, physically and emotionally. One person said, “Yes. they have all done their best.” Relatives’ comments included, “They are excellent, proactive. They keep me informed. Cannot recommend them enough” and “Yes, their skills support [my family member] safely”.

The provider planned 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 dietary needs, including cultural needs, and preferences were assessed and planned for.

We asked people if care staff had skills they needed to support them, physically and emotionally. One person said, “Yes. they have all done their best.” Relatives’ comments included, “They are excellent, proactive. They keep me informed. Cannot recommend them enough” and “Yes, their skills support [my family member] safely”.

The provider planned 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 dietary needs, including cultural needs, and preferences were assessed and planned for.

We asked people if care staff had skills they needed to support them, physically and emotionally. One person said, “Yes. they have all done their best.” Relatives’ comments included, “They are excellent, proactive. They keep me informed. Cannot recommend them enough” and “Yes, their skills support [my family member] safely”.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. People’s care plans and daily records included information and updates about their on-going care needs. Referrals were made to local health and care services when people needed specific clinical support or assessments.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People were asked to confirm their consent to receive care and support from the provider. One person said, “[Staff] will ask. If they are preparing meals they ask if they can do that for me. [Named staff member] is special, I enjoy her company, talks to me.” Another person said, “Yes, [staff] ask for my permission.” Relative’s comments included, “[Staff][ ask for consent”, “Yes, [my family member] is asked and [staff] say, ‘now we are going to do...’”.

Where people lacked capacity, best interest decisions were recorded. This usually included input from people’s families and others involved in their welfare.

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. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. When people receive care and treatment in their own homes an application must be made to the Court of Protection for them to authorise people to be deprived of their liberty.

We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA.