78 Stubbington Lane

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.

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 service 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. We observed a person had recently gone through a period of increased agitation. We noted this person’s positive behavioural support plan (PBSP) had not been recently reviewed. This meant staff may not have been following the most up to date guidance available.

We observed some people’s documents such as health action plans, hospital passports and communication passports did not have a date of completion on them. This meant there was a risk the information provided was not up to date.

Staff told us people’s views were sought by using their preferred communication methods across various platforms including, during daily support and in meetings with their keyworker.

People were involved in their assessments and reviews and/or staff and those who knew people well were involved in people’s assessments to ensure their views and opinions were captured.

The service 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 manager told us how they used evidence based tools which supported staff to recognise if a person’s health was deteriorating. For example, a physical deterioration and escalation tool for care homes (RESTORE2). Where there was a concern relating to a person’s swallowing, a care plan was in place with guidance from Speech and Language Therapists (SaLT) on how to support the person safely. People were supported to maintain relationships with friends and family by making phone and video calls.

The service did not always work well across teams and services to support people. The service worked with speech and language therapists,occupational therapists, district nurses and social workers.

We sought feedback from professional’s who worked closely with the service. Professionals told us the provider kept them informed and sought their advice, however, 2 professionals gave us examples of where the recommendations given, were not implemented. Professionals were concerned this was due to the high turnover of managers. They were confident with the new manager in post, 1 professional told us, “The current manager has been implementing the changes required.”

People’s goals, dreams and aspirations were always communicated so a consistent approach was maintained between services.

The service did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice, and control.

The service did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Although, the provider had taken some action to support people with a healthier menu, we reviewed this menu and found there were further improvements needed to ensure it was balanced and healthy. A professional also shared with us their concerns about the menu.

We spoke to the manager about this, they assured us they would relook at the menu and shopping lists with people to ensure improvements were made. One person’s daily activity involved going to the shop and buying unhealthy snacks.

We spoke with the provider about this, who told us they would be working closely with professionals to try to improve this situation for the persons health.

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

People were engaged to ensure they were able to make choices about their lives. Individual meetings took place with people to understand their goals and aspirations.

Improvements had been made following our previous inspection. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

We reviewed mental capacity assessments (MCAs) which were completed in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We could see how the person had been involved in the assessment and how the provider had supported the person to understand the decision.

We did not see evidence the provider had meaningfully engaged people’s relatives in the process. The provider told us, moving forward they would ensure this happened.

A DoLS tracker was in place to ensure the provider knew when these needed to be reapplied for. Staff described to us how they sought consent throughout the day to day tasks they supported people with.