Head Office

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

Young people were involved in assessing their needs and their preferences were obtained and used to plan and deliver their care and support. People’s care and support was planned and delivered in line with current practice, legislation and standards. Staff understood people’s needs and met these in line with people’s preferences. The staff team worked well together and with others to make sure people experienced positive outcomes in relation to their care and support. People were supported to stay healthy and well.

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.

Staff assessed the physical and mental health of patients on admission to the service. They developed individual care plans which were reviewed regularly through multidisciplinary discussion and updated as needed. Care plans reflected patient needs, and were personalised, holistic and recovery oriented.

For example, one patient confirmed they had developed care plans with staff that allowed them to cook their own meals and to take part in recording their own song at a music studio with support from staff. Some patients were attending equine therapy.

Staff had completed a comprehensive mental health assessment for the patient prior to taking them into the service. The provider used psychologists and other therapy staff on a sessional basis dependent on the needs of the patients.

Assessments considered the patients’ health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs, to enable them to receive care or treatment that had the best possible outcomes.

Staff could tell us how they would support the patient and use different methods to distract the patient if they became agitated or upset.

Staff regularly reviewed and updated care plans when needs changed, and nurses regularly audited care plans in the records we reviewed.

The patients told us there was a broad range of treatment options available to them. They told us, and we saw them, plan meals and activities for the week with staff and plan what they needed to achieve that week.

They confirmed they were involved in the development of their care plans. They understood what care they were receiving and how they were progressing towards their goals. For example, one patient had wanted to record their own music, another had wanted to begin some voluntary work in a subject they were confident in. Staff had discussed this with them and made achievable goals to work towards. The patient had felt in control and had enjoyed the experience.

Managers and staff could outline how they supported the patients. Managers ensured staff had the right skills, qualifications and experience to meet the needs of the patients in their care, including bank and agency staff. Staff were trained in a range of courses suitable for their roles.

Managers gave each new member of staff a full induction to the service before they started work. Staff received a thorough induction package prior to commencing work. Staff also had a local induction in the house they were working in.

When patients were due to move on from the service, all necessary staff, teams and services were involved in assessing their needs to maintain continuity of care.

There were several different professionals who provided care, this included mainly support workers, a registered mental health nurse, house managers, therapists etc. The patients told us that they felt all of them understood their needs and they knew what progress they were making or if changes to their care had been agreed.

Staff made sure they shared clear information about the patients and any changes in their care, including during handover meetings. We also saw staff discussing their welfare not only at multi-disciplinary team meetings but on a daily basis.

We saw that the service provided a range of care from different services, and it was co-ordinated effectively.

All relevant staff and services were involved in assessing, planning and delivering patient care and treatment and staff worked collaboratively to understand and meet those needs.

The patients told us they were supported to manage their own health, care and wellbeing needs by staff who understood their needs and preferences. They could tell us about how they were supported to cook their own meals and encouraged to take regular exercise or participate in sports they enjoyed. Patients shared positive feedback about the activities and groups they were involved in.

Patients told us they were encouraged to register with the local GP, near to where their house was situated. They would access dentists and opticians as required in the community as any other member of the general public would. Staff would support them with this and give guidance where required.

Staff made sure there was access to physical health care, including specialists as required. We saw that patients had access to dentists and opticians. Staff met patient’s dietary needs and encouraged patients to budget, shop and cook for themselves or with support if required.

Staff identified patient’s physical health needs and recorded them in their care plans. Staff ensured dietary needs of patients were met and assessed those needing specialist care for nutrition and hydration.

There were regular house meetings, and we saw patients discussing everyday activities with staff. They responded to the patients requests and had arranged different activities because of those requests.

Staff told us they took part in clinical audits, benchmarking and quality improvement initiatives. This included a new improvement initiative where staff would be rotated around different houses to gain relationships and expertise in different areas and reduce the risk of closed cultures forming. Managers were able to share the audit process in each of the areas we visited, we did however find that audits were not always as robust as they could be, checking for completion rather than quality of tasks. We also found two occasions where audits had not picked up on errors we discovered during our visit.

We saw evidence of minutes of meetings with staff and patients in each of the houses we visited. Patients told us they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment and were encouraged to give their views and opinions on decisions.

Patients told us they were involved in their care planning and were able to make decisions for themselves, this was encouraged by staff. They had easy access to information about independent mental health advocacy.

Staff took all practical steps to enable patients to make their own decisions. For patients who might have impaired mental capacity, staff worked alongside the local authority to assess and record capacity 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.

The service had clear, accessible, relevant and up-to-date policies and procedures that reflected all relevant legislation including the Mental Capacity act.

Staff received and kept up to date with training on the Mental Capacity Act and its principles.