Heron Court

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

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff asked people’s consent before any care or support was given, and we saw people had access to health and social care professionals when needed.

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.

People and relatives told us they were involved in ongoing reviews of their care and support. A relative told us, “They involve me with everything, they will call about medicines or GP visits.”

Staff knew people very well and told us they were involved in ongoing assessments of people’s needs. A staff member told us, “Senior staff write the care plan and complete the updates. The staff then take the time to read them.” The registered manager said, “We use the initial assessment and pre-assessment to assess people’s needs. We either go out and assess people or make a phone call. People can come and view the home and we speak to families and the resident themselves as part of our assessment.”

Systems were in place to ensure people's needs were assessed, planned and regularly reviewed to ensure they received support that met their changing needs. The service used a range of assessment tools to ensure people’s needs were reflective and understood. The care plan contained information about people’s communication needs and how they should be met.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

People and relatives told us they were supported with choices about their care and treatment. Throughout the assessment we observed staff asking for consent before undertaking care tasks. A person told us, “I can do as I please, I like to come out in the garden most of the time, the staff don’t stop me.” A relative said, “They always offer [family member] a choice with food.”

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and had a good understanding of the principles. A staff member told us, “I work well with people. I make sure they have choices about everything.”

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty. Any conditions related to DoLS authorisations were being met.