Bings Hall

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’s views were not always considered when decisions were being made about their care. Mental Capacity Assessments were not detailed and there was a lack of evidence that good practice was followed to ensure decisions were in people’s best interests. Staff told us they understood the principles of consent but our observations of staff did not always demonstrate this knowledge in practice. During our assessment of this key question, we found concerns around the assessment of people’s capacity and best interests decision making processes which resulted in a breach of Regulation 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can find more details of our concerns in the evidence category findings below.

This service scored 71 (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.

When speaking to people it was clear that their views were not always considered when decisions were being made about their care. For example, where people shared bedrooms, it was not clear this was in their best interest to do so. One person told us, “I would prefer my own bedroom and own toilet.”

Staff told us they understood the principles around people giving their consent to care and support and offered examples of how they ensured this was done when supporting people. Despite staff knowledge, we observed some staff did not always knock on people’s bedroom doors, and that when supporting people they did not always ask for their consent. However, we did see some positive interactions with staff where they talked through the care and support they were providing to the person.

We found that MCA assessments were not detailed and lacked the required information to show why the decision being made was in the person’s best interest. Processes were not robust and we found 12 assessments having been reviewed in less than an hour by one member of staff. These records showed reviews of decisions were made in isolation.