Sirona Care & Health C.I.C.

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

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.
 

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.

We reviewed 11 care records during this inspection and found they were personalised, holistic and recovery-oriented . For example, we saw that staff had used photos of people’s medicines in their easy read information about these medicines. This had led to people taking their medicines more regularly. Staff updated care plans when necessary and assessed patients’ needs in a timely manner after accepting the referral.

Staff provided a range of care and treatment interventions suitable for people with a learning disability. The interventions were those recommended by, and were delivered in line with, guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. These include medication and Speech and Language therapies.
Staff participated in clinical audit, benchmarking and quality improvement initiatives.
The team included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of patients in the service . For example, there was access to psychiatrists, access to speech and language therapy and access to nursing. Staff were experienced and competent, and had the right skills and knowledge to meet the needs of the patient group.
Managers provided staff with supervision (meetings to discuss case management, to reflect on and learn from practice, and for personal support and professional development) and appraisal of their work performance. We saw that all staff had regular supervision. However, staff told us that the supervision for mental health nurses was not given by a nurse and they felt it was less effective because of this. Managers ensured that staff received the necessary specialist training for their roles.
 

Staff held regular and effective multidisciplinary meetings. The teams had effective working relationships, including good handovers, with teams outside the organisation. However, staff told us that they felt internal teams worked in more of a ‘silo’ way (separate teams). The provider was aware of the silo working and had developed a plan to address it.

Staff supported people with a learning disability to live healthier lives through innovative work, for example, using puppets and play dough to help illustrate the process for bowel cancer screenings.

Staff used recognised rating scales to assess and record the severity of their need and their treatment outcomes. This meant they could track outcomes and improve the care they gave.

Staff took all practical steps to enable patients to make their own decisions. For patients who might have impaired mental capacity, staff assessed and recorded capacity to consent appropriately. They did this on a decision-specific basis with regard to significant decisions. When patients lacked capacity, staff made decisions in their best interests, recognising the importance of the person’s wishes, feelings, culture and history. However, in one record we reviewed (out of 11) we saw poor documentation of capacity to make decisions.