Whyke Lodge

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.

The service was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to consent to care and treatment. Improvements were found at this assessment and the service was no longer in breach of this regulation.

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 in a holistic way and their views, and those of their relatives, were included. A relative told us, “A good assessment was carried out on admission to ensure they know the person’s background and likes and dislikes.” Assessments were clear, detailed and considered people’s individual needs. For example, there were assessments relating to health conditions including diabetes, stoma care, mobility and mental health needs. Communication needs had been assessed and included details of equipment and strategies to support effective communication with people.

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 used evidence-based tools to assist their assessment process. This meant there were effective systems to identify the level of risk and to monitor any changes. One person had a history of serious illness. The provider used clinical assessment tools to assess and monitor their health needs, this included monitoring their weight, skin integrity, nutrition and hydration.

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.

The provider’s systems supported staff to pass information to other teams and services when appropriate to do so. For example, a person was prescribed an anti-coagulant medicine that increased their risk of injury. A staff member explained how this information was included within their care plan and had been passed onto the dentist when the person needed treatment. They said, “It’s an important detail the dentist needs to know.”

Staff described working well with other services. One staff member said, “We work closely with the GP and district nurses, they come in regularly, for example to give a person injections.” A relative told us how staff had ensured hospital staff were informed of a person’s needs and wishes when they were admitted for a planned procedure. They said, “The staff dealt with everything, including when they were coming out of hospital to make sure everything was in place, including sorting out the medication.”

The provider’s systems supported transitions between services. For example, when people needed to go to hospital, information was sent with them regarding their medicines and brief details about the person that were important for hospital staff to know in a “This is me,” document.

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, and their relatives, said staff were proactive in supporting them with health needs. One person said, “They are so good at calling the doctor if needed.” A relative said their loved one had been referred to a specialist, they told us how staff would support the person with the appointment saying, “The carer will go with him.”

The provider’s systems supported monitoring of people’s health needs. For example, people were weighed regularly and if they had unplanned weight loss this was identified and investigated. If required, a plan was put in place to prevent further weight loss.

Appropriate referrals were made to investigate health concerns and advice or guidance from health care professionals was included within care plans. We noted examples including advice from an Occupational Therapist (OT) to support a person’s mobility, Speech and Language Therapist (SaLT) following an assessment of a person at risk of choking and advice from the falls team to reduce risks of a falls.

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.

Systems for monitoring people’s needs were robust. Staff kept consistent and accurate records to support monitoring, for example people’s weight was regularly monitored. Staff were aware of individual needs and provided effective support. For example, maintaining good hydration was included within a person’s care plan to reduce risks associated with skin integrity. A relative told us drinks were readily available, they said, “I have never visited (my relative) without seeing a jug of drink in front of them.” We noted staff were supporting people and encouraging them to have drinks throughout the day. Another relative told us, “They (staff) are very good at keeping the fluids up, I have seen them assisting others with drinks.”

One person was at high risk of falls due to a deterioration in their health. The provider had sought advice from an Occupational Therapist who recommended a hoist and sling and this was included within a manual handling risk assessment and care plan. We observed staff supporting the person to move and following good practice when using the hoist and sling. A staff member said this had reduced the risk of falls for the person and enabled them to remain actively involved in the day-to-day activities at the service to support their well-being and maintained their quality of life.

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

People and their relatives told us staff understood their responsibilities for seeking consent before providing care and treatment. One person said, “They always check with me first.” A staff member described seeking verbal consent from some people but said they also looked at people’s body language if they were not able to communicate their agreement verbally. Another staff member said, “We ask for consent before providing support and talk to the residents when we are supporting them, for example with the hoist, so they feel safer.” We observed how a staff member had explained to a person before supporting them to move with the hoist. They waited for the person to agree and spoke reassuringly to them throughout the procedure.

Records showed issues of consent were considered in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2015. For example, some people had restriction in place to reduce risks of falls, including the use of a sensor mat and bed rails. Some people lacked capacity to consent to these restrictions and the provider had recorded how decisions had been made in people’s best interest with the involvement of relatives and professionals where appropriate. Some people were subject to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and appropriate applications had been made to the local authority.