Barclay Services

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 concerns with the providers process in recording needs in people's care records, and found multiple errors and missing information. However, permanent staff knew people well, which meant they could meet their needs. We found the service had not involved any independent advocacy services and have made a recommendation about this. Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had been completed but it was not always clear who else had been involved in the discussions. Staff gave people choices and understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

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 confirmed how they were assigned to a core staff group to support a named individual. Whilst they may pick up additional shifts and work with other people, this was infrequent and would only be with people they had worked with before. This meant people were supported by a consistent staff team that knew them well. Staff confirmed that before people transferred to the service, their needs were assessed and if staff required additional training, this was completed.

People were involved in discussions about their care, risks and safety. People told us they received individualised care and support.

Feedback from partners was good. One social worker stated staff were kind, knew the person well, and were able to communicate with them using the person's preferred method of communication. This ensured staff could meet the person's needs.

The provider's process for recording people's needs was not effective. A number of errors were identified in people's care records. This meant staff did not have up to date written information about people's needs. We observed staff practice, and found staff did know people well, however, there was a risk that new members of staff would not have this insight, and would not have accurate records to refer to.

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 given choices by staff. Relative feedback with good, with one relative stating that staff supported their loved one to make choices, even if the choices they made appeared unwise.

Staff were able to demonstrate a basic understanding on the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. They demonstrated knowledge of how they could support people with day to day decisions and how capacity assessments and best interest decisions are required for more important decisions.

Mental capacity assessments and best interest documents were reviewed, and showed how discussions unfolded with people, and the content which was discussed. We identified that records could have been made clearer to describe who else had been involved in the discussions. We also identified that the provider's Mental Capacity policy was not relevant for the setting, as it referred to DOLs in care homes. The provider had not involved any independent advocacy services for people living at the service. We made a recommendation that the provider should consider exploring advocacy services available to people using the service.