Lulworth

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

There was a person centred approach to the care planning and support given. Care plans included information about people's preferences and were in an easy to read format. This made it easy for people to understand them. Staff told us people were supported to be involved in their care plans and made contributions to them. People were supported to access advocacy when appropriate. We saw staff supporting people in a caring and supportive way. Staff involved people in their care and sought their consent prior to carrying out tasks. People appeared comfortable in the presence of staff and interacted well together. People were supported to achieve their outcomes.

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 undertook specific individualised training to meet and assess people’s needs. This also meant they were competent to review assessed needs. Care plans were, personalised and detailed. Plans also included personal goals and a plan to reach any aspirations.

Staff told us they reviewed people’s support plans based on individual outcomes and adapted them where necessary. Staff and leaders also told us that they place the importance of ensuring the environment met people’s individual sensory and physical needs.

People, their families, carers, and other stakeholders were involved in the assessment and review of care and treatment. Assessments focused on people’s strengths and promoted independence. Assessments also considered assistive technology to meet identified needs. People at Lulworth used a range of technology to enable people to communicate. As a result of these assessments staff knew people's specific needs and were able to escalate changes if the presentation of emotion state or stress indicated changes in their health or wellbeing.

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.

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. 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 MCA. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). MCA assessments had been completed and showed where people did not have capacity to make decisions, such as for personal care and receiving medicines, decision specific assessments were made. These included consultation with those close to the person and decisions had been made in the best interests of the person. Where necessary, applications had been made to the relevant authority and nobody was being unlawfully deprived of their liberty. There were systems in place to ensure that renewal applications were submitted in a timely way prior to existing DoLS becoming out of date.

Where people had capacity to make decisions, we saw they consented with the proposed care and support. Staff knew how to communicate with people about consent. For example, people would use body language if they didn’t wish to get out of bed and get dressed at a certain time. These decisions were respected. Staff were heard providing people with choices in relation to where they spent their time, what they wanted to do and if they wanted to be involved in activities.

Care staff were following people's documented wishes. People's right to decline care was understood. Staff said that, should people decline care or medicines, they would return a short while later to offer assistance again. Should people continue to decline they would encourage but respect the person's decisions and inform the management team.