Boulevard House

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 involvement in assessing, planning and reviewing their care was maximised. Staff understood how to support people with making decisions and ensure their legal rights were upheld.

This service scored 58 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were involved in the assessment of their needs, and support was provided where needed to maximise their involvement. For example, we saw people’s care plans contained easy read summaries so people could review their own care plans. One person talked us through their care plan and was able to explain what each section was for. The person said, “It [care plan] keeps me safe, lets staff know what I like and don’t like.”

Staff told us the registered manager was responsible for care plan creation, but they actively sought out their views and feedback before creating or reviewing care plans. One staff member said, “Each person living here has a key worker, and we are involved in all aspects of the care plan, we sit with people and [registered manager] to make sure they [care plans] reflect what people want and need.”

Care plans we reviewed were comprehensive and reflected people’s needs. A range of national assessment tools were now used consistently, to understand people’s needs and how best to support them. For example, Waterlow and Must scores. We saw evidence of care plans being updated and modified in line with people’s changing needs. For example, where other professionals such as district nurses or GP had made recommendations, these had been updated clearly within people’s care plans and communicated to staff effectively with handover meetings.

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’s capacity to make decisions about their everyday lives was assumed. We saw people were supported with information to help them with decision making where needed. Where people did not have capacity to make complex decisions or give their consent, such as with hospital treatments, we saw best interest decisions were made and appropriately recorded in line with Mental Capacity Act (2005).

Staff understood the legal framework for assessing people’s capacity to make certain decisions and spoke about the training they received about the subject. One staff member spoke about the importance of giving people enough information in ways they could understand to support their decision making.

Systems were in place to ensure people’s rights to make decisions about their care and treatment were upheld. Some people were subject to restrictions under Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS are a set of legal requirements which ensure that individuals are only deprived of their liberty in a necessary and proportionate way for their protection. DoLS authorisations were up to date, reviewed regularly and any conditions were adhered to by staff.