8 Acres

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

For those quality statements that were assessed, we identified a breach of the regulations in relation to consent to care and treatment. This did not ensure staff were supporting people to have maximum choice and control over their lives to maintain and uphold their human rights.

Not all quality statements were assessed in effective, therefore scoring is reflective of previous inspection ratings.

This service scored 42 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s assessed needs and risks recorded in their care records, were not found to be consistently recognised and acted on by staff in the standards of care provided. We also identified a tendency for the registered manager to wait for involvement from external health professionals rather than implement any interim supportive measures.

People’s care records did not reflect involvement from their relatives and friends in their development, to ensure their individual needs, wishes and preferences were reflected. Our findings were confirmed by feedback we received from people’s relatives.

Staff told us they had close working relationships with the GP and other external health and social care professionals. However, the guidance and information sourced was not consistently reflected in the care and support provided.

We identified areas of training and development for staff to ensure they had the required skills and knowledge to meet people’s assessed needs. We received assurances from the provider that our feedback was being acted on, however, change was only happening as an outcome of our inspection feedback, and not from the provider’s own policies and procedures.

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 abilities to consent to care and treatment were not being consistently assessed, reviewed or monitored. Where assessments of mental capacity were being completed, these were found to be of poor quality.

People’s equality, diversity and human rights were not being upheld, due to poor implementation and understanding by staff and leaders of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

As part of the inspection process, the provider shared numerous photographs as part of the evidence they submitted. However, people’s individual consent for these photographs to be shared with CQC had not been sourced by the provider.

From speaking with staff, both on site and by telephone, we concluded that staff were not implementing their training on mental capacity and DoLS into practice, and demonstrated a lack of understanding in relation to their own accountability within the process.

Staff were unaware of those people who had conditions imposed as part of their DoLS, and the impact this had on the approaches to care and support provided. In part, this was due to poor recording of DoLS conditions within people’s care records.

The provider and registered manager’s level of oversight of people’s approved DoLS, and those with conditions attached was poor. We received documents with varying levels of detail included, and 1 page summary documents of people’s needs which did not consistently reflect they had a DoLS in place. We could not be assured that people’s individual rights were being upheld.