280-282 Wells Road

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

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this. Staff had undertaken training in how to support autistic people and how to support people with a learning disability. Staff’s skills and competency had been assessed to ensure they understood the individual needs and care plans of people they supported and were able to meet them. People’s communication needs were clearly documented, and people felt staff understood how to communicate with them.

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.

The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People and their relatives were involved in regular reviews of their care plans which reflected their individual needs and wishes.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. For example, staff supported a person with expressing their sexuality and supported them to make informed choices about their care and treatment.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. The service worked with external professionals when people moved into the service, ensuring a detailed pre-assessment was completed.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people were able to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. For example, people were supported to understand healthy eating choices in line with their dietary requirements. One person was observed making food choices which supported a reduction in risks related to their diagnoses of diabetes.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. For example, people had regular health reviews with their GP.

The service did not always effectively record where people’s consent had been obtained. Care planning documentation we reviewed at the time of assessment did not fully reflect people’s decisions or where decisions had been made in their best interest. For example, where a person had chosen to have their items stored in a secure location, this was not detailed within the person's care plan.