S E L F Limited - 14 Park View

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

At the lasted rated inspection this key question was rated as good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant on the whole people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this. People’s needs were assessed before they came to use the service. The care records clearly detailed people’s needs. Staff made people aware of their rights around consent and respected these when they delivered the person-centred care.

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 felt involved in all aspects of the design of the care package and how it was delivered. They felt the assessment was thorough and captured their needs. A person said, “They always get me to say what I want and look at the care plans.” A relative said, “We are asked to talk how well staff are working with [person’s name], which is really good.”

Staff told us that there were effective systems in place to assess and monitor people's needs. A staff member said, " Discussions are encouraged as [registered manager] will remind us that we all have different relationships with the service users, so we can help each other understand their needs and offer advice to each other. Daily handovers are a time when issues are usually reported and will be resolved that day if possible, if they were not resolved during the shift."

Assessments were produced, which were regularly updated, and these fully captured people's needs. The staff used assessments as the basis for developing the detailed risk assessments and care plans. People’s records included information about any need to use the Mental Capacity Act such as whether people lacked capacity to make decisions, contact details for GPs and immediate family members, and information about healthcare conditions. This helped staff recognise any deterioration in health so they could contact people's relatives and health and social care professionals.

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 were supported to have the maximum choice and control over their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. People told us they were involved in decisions about their care.

When people receive care and treatment in their own homes, an application must be made to the Court of Protection for them to authorise people to be deprived of their liberty if they lack capacity to consent to their care and treatment. At the time of the inspection nobody using the service was subject to restrictions of their liberty, but staff understood the requirements of this legislation. Staff told us they empowered people to make their own decisions about their care and support.

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 Act 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. Staff had received training around the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and associated code of practice and felt confident applying this in their practice. We confirmed DNACPR and consent policies, and procedures around how to complete capacity assessment and ‘best interests’ meetings were in place.