Sowerby House

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

We identified a breach of legal regulations. People were not supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives, staff did not support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; policies and systems in the service did not support this practice. Staff did not always follow the Mental Capacity Act key principles when making best interest decisions.

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.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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.

We received mixed feedback from people in relation to choice and control. Comments included, “I don’t feel that I’ve had any choice in anything. I don’t want to be here but can’t stay at home apparently” and “I get up when I want then come here for a bacon sandwich. They come round and ask what we want for lunch. There’s usually a choice.”

Staff told us how they ensured people both understood and were able to consent to their care and support. One staff member said, “We always ask and involve people if they are happy to be supported. For example, when we assist with personal care, we ask them if they are ready for a wash.”

People were not always supported to have personalised care and support designed around their specific needs and preferences. 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 Mental Capacity Act (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 not always working within the principles of the MCA. People were not always involved in decisions and best interests were not always in place to support the least restrictive practices. Where some people were recorded as lacking capacity, there was no supporting MCA’s in place. Restrictive practices such as lowered beds, did not have MCA’s or best interests decisions in place.