74 Old Ford End

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 inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection 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 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Although there were systems in place to assess and plan for people's needs, the provider did not always ensure people received care in line with these assessments. We found shortfalls in meeting people's needs concerning sleep, taking part in activities, managing known risks and how the provider monitored care records. This meant the service did not always ensure people's care and support were effective.

The service did not always evidence they delivered people’s care effectively. For example, where a person’s care plan stated they should be provided activities that supported their cognition and provided guidance on how staff should support them with emotional distress, records did not always show that staff provided support in this way. This increased the risk of people's needs not being met and the provider being unable to review the effectiveness of care plans.

External health-professionals had not always been involved to ensure care was safe. We identified that a referral to an external health professional had not been made to ensure that staff prepared food safely for people with swallowing difficulties. The registered manager made a referral after we highlighted this concern to them. However, we found other occasions where the service worked well across teams and services to support people. Records showed people had seen health professionals such as GPs, dentists and psychiatrists.

The service did not consistently support people in managing their health and well-being. For example, a person's care plan stated they should be supported with exercises twice daily, records did not show that this support was offered or always took place. This increased risks related to their mobility. However, where people were intolerant to food groups or needed their food to be fortified, these needs were assessed, and they received appropriate nutrition. A staff member told us the service promoted a person's health by ensuring they had access to healthy snacks. A regular monthly 'keep fit' session was also available to people who wanted to participate. Another person had regular support to attend hydrotherapy sessions.

The service did not always effectively monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. We identified concerns in ensuring people always received the correct staffing levels, support with activities, medicines safety, care planning, and learning from all incidents and accidents. The provider had not independently identified these concerns before our assessment. This increased the risk of people not experiencing positive and consistent outcomes.

People's capacity to make decisions related to their care and treatment had been considered, and authorisation had been sought to deprive people of their liberty where required.