Laural 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

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 assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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. Although no one had moved into the service for many years, the service had a process in place to ensure people had their needs assessed before moving into the service. People and those involved in their care took part in assessments and reviews. Their views and opinions were respected, listened to and implemented as part of the day-to-day support. One relative told us, “I feel they look after [relative], include us and keep us up to date.”

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. Staff supported people to maintain links with those that are important to them. Throughout the visits we observed people being supported to go and see their relatives. Records viewed showed technology was used to support people to contact their loved ones. One relative told us how their loved one was supported to see them away from the home as they were not physically able to access the home.

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. Staff and the management team provided us with examples of how they worked with heath and social care professionals to support people’s needs, for example GP’s speech and language therapists. One relative told us, “They are good with the medical side, GP’s or dentists etc, they are fine.” Visiting professionals were complimentary about how the staff worked with them to meet people’s needs. One professional told us, “[Registered manager] will contact me if there have been any incidents, and I believe staff are very through and prompt at informing me of any issues.”

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. One professional told us, “With my client they try to encourage healthy eating and diet and educate around physical health.” Changes in people’s presentation, emotional state or distress which may show a deterioration in their health or wellbeing were recognised by staff. Staff took action when they identified change and escalated them to relevant professionals.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. People’s skills, life experience and strengths were discussed with them and those involved in their care, to consider how people’s goals, ambitions and outcomes were planned and achieved. Staff introduced new ideas to people to enhance their quality of life, such as new activities, skills, and work opportunities. Evidence of positive outcomes achieved were provided throughout the assessment. For example, staff had supported people in a way that had enabled them to reduce anxieties which resulted in people requiring less staff support and a reduction in their medicines.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. However, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), which provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves, was not always being followed. Although applications had been submitted to authorise a person being deprived of their liberty, appropriate decision specific mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were not always in place for all restrictions within the home. The provider immediately took action to rectify this. Staff knew the importance of seeking consent. Throughout our visits we observed people being asked their consent before support was provided. One staff member told us they always ask if it is okay to support the person, with the person’s decision being respected. People made their own choices and decision on a day to day basis about what they did, what they ate and how they filled their time. Where people were not able to verbally communicate their choices there were communication plans in place for staff to follow to ensure people were in control of their own lives.