44 Albion Road

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 remained requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 58 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The provider did not always evaluate the compatibility of people living at the service when undertaking assessments. For example, when the provider assessed 1 person’s needs, they did not fully consider the significant impact of them on the well-being of other people, before supporting the person to move into the service. This meant that people experienced distress because the provider had not taken into consideration the likely consequences of one person’s specific support needs on others.

Where people presented with specific needs, referrals were made to professionals to carry out assessments. For example, when people presented with behavioural support needs referrals were made to psychologists, behavioural therapists and the provider organisation’s own specialist practitioners, who undertook assessments and provided training and guidelines for staff. Similarly, when people were observed to have difficulty swallowing, referrals were made to speech and language therapy for assessment and guidance. This guidance was incorporated into care plans to instruct staff in the preparation of food and drink in prescribed consistencies and the support people required to eat and drink.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

The provider had not always fully considered the information available to them when developing the service. When assessing the needs and preferences of 1 person moving into the service, the provider failed to recognise the impact of their needs and preferences on people already living there. This meant the provider did not always follow an evidence-based approach.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services.

Each member of staff we spoke with confirmed there had been significant discord at the service in the months leading up to our visit, describing conflict and disagreements within the team. This had a negative impact on how people received care and support.

The provider was aware of the conflicts and division within the team and had carried out a number of actions. These included arranging meetings as listening exercises, individual discussions between the provider’s human resource team and staff members, and team building workshops.

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 accessed healthcare provision whenever required. Staff made referrals to healthcare professionals when specialist assessments were required and followed their resulting guidance. Staff arranged and accompanied people to healthcare appointments. These included appointments with the GP, dentist, optician and at hospital.

Staff promoted healthy living for people. People were offered nutritious eating options and were encouraged to eat well. People were supported to be physically active and to undertake exercise if they wanted to. For example, some people attended local gyms.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The provider’s monitoring was not always effective in ensuring quality care and support. The impact of moving one person into the service with needs unsuitable for the service, meant that outcomes for people were not improving. The incompatibility of people had a destabilising effect on the service and prevented people them from leading their fullest lives.

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

People gave their consent to the care and support staff provided. Staff received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and supported people in the least restrictive way possible. Where restrictions were necessary to keep someone safe, appropriate DoLS authorisations had been requested and granted by the local authority.