Basingstoke Centre

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

At our last assessment the service was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to staffing. At this assessment the service had improved sufficiently and is no longer in breach of this regulation.

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.

The provider checked and discussed people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. However, these were not always fully documented in their care plans.

People were assessed prior to support being provided to ensure staff could support people safely. People and where required their relatives were involved in their assessments. However, some care plans did not contain sufficient information to guide staff how to support people safely. For example, one person’s care plan stated they required support with transfers using a wheeled frame which stated to follow manual handling guidance. This guidance was not included within the care plan.
Some people had medical conditions however, their care plans did not always detail how health conditions affected people or the signs to look out for if potentially deteriorating. There was no guidance when to seek medical attention.
The registered manager did have all the relevant information but had not always documented it. They had passed on this information to staff and the risk to people was mitigated by staff knowing people well and how to support them.
People told us they received reviews of their care to ensure their care plan met their current needs.

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.
The provider had worked with people to plan and deliver their care and had worked with professionals to implement their guidance. Referrals were made to relevant health care professionals when required.
Staff told us if they had any concerns about people’s eating and drinking, referrals would be made to dieticians or speech and language therapists (SaLT) who would provide specialist guidance. Staff we spoke with were aware of how to support people at risk of choking, with details provided in their app on any modified food or drink consistency in accordance with national guidance.

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 between different services.
People’s care plans included where other stakeholders had input into their care, such as GP or district nurses. Details of other agencies were also in their care plans. Staff told us they worked together well as a team and contacted external professionals as needed or escalated concerns to management to follow these up. Staff also told us the provider communicated very well with them as a team or individually when needed.
There was very positive feedback from professionals and partners about the service and how they had worked together to improve outcomes for one person.

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’s healthcare needs were identified in their care plans. This included the level of support they needed to maintain good health. Senior staff told us they monitored daily logs of care to help recognise when people’s needs were changing and whether care needed adjusting. The service could also communicate with staff via the electronic care planning system, which meant updates and key messages could be shared in real time. Where people had specific health conditions, staff had training in line with these conditions. This helped to ensure they had a good understanding of how to effectively manage them. However, staff did say they would like more training on complex conditions if people had them.

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.

People’s care plans identified specific goals and outcomes related to their care. Staff were aware of these and how to support people. The provider had worked well with professionals to improve outcomes for people. Reviews of care were being undertaken regularly to ensure people’s outcomes were up to date and relevant.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. However, the provider had not always sufficiently documented all relevant decisions.

The provider sought consent during the initial assessment, documenting verbal consent where people were unable to sign. This helped to ensure the provider was following the correct procedures around gaining consent to care.

There were policies and procedures in place to ensure valid consent to care was obtained. People told us staff sought their consent before delivering care .
However, mental capacity assessments had not always been fully documented where required. For example, when locking doors to prevent a person leaving and when using safety locks on car doors. Where mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had taken place, they were not always detailed and sufficiently comprehensive to show how decisions had been made in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Where relatives participated in these assessments there was not always enough detail to demonstrate what the relative’s opinion was or if they agreed with the decision being made. The provider understood the need for clearer documentation and improved this during the assessment. For example; People’s mental capacity assessments for medicines was appropriate, accurate and complete. However, this still needed to be embedded.
Staff had a good knowledge of MCA and how to implement it including power of attorney and recognising financial abuse.