Hepworth 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the

rating has changed to Inadequate: This meant there were widespread and significant shortfalls

in people’s care, support and outcomes.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

We found assessments were not always completed consistently, resulting in gaps in care plans.

People were not sufficiently involved in the planning of their care and care plans lacked details

about personal preferences and specific needs. We found some people were subjected to

interventions against their wishes, violating the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

This service scored 38 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not make sure people’s care and treatment was effective because they did not

check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. There

were no clear processes established to assess people’s needs upon moving into the service,

resulting in inconsistencies. Some people had their assessments completed before using the

service, while others did not. We found several people did not have any care plans in place,

while others had care plans that contained limited information. This lack of information meant

that the provider could not be certain they had all the relevant details about each person and

their care needs to ensure the delivery of safe care.

The provider did not consistently involve people in planning and delivering their care and

treatment, including considering what was important to them. Where people did have care plans,

we found these lacked details to show that individuals had been engaged in the planning

process. The provider's systems did not ensure that staff adhered to current legislation, such as

the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The provider did not always work effectively across teams and services to support people.

Whilst there was evidence of engagement with other professionals, such as the GP, we found

that records did not always reflect the current needs of people using the service. As a result,

there was a risk that professionals involved in people’s care would not have access to up-to-

date information.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing. Where people

were living with health conditions, for example, diabetes, care plans were not in place to guide

and support staff to manage this. Where people needed to have regular health monitoring, for

example, blood pressure, this was not routinely taking place.

However, we found where people required specialist diets, for example, fortified foods, this was

catered for. People were generally happy with the food on offer and told us staff regularly

promoted them to drink. One person said, “Food is good, I eat sometimes too much but it’s good

for me", a relative told us, “Drinking [enough] was and is a problem for [relative], staff are trying

jellies and other things to supplement.” We observed meals we well presented, snacks and a

hydration station were available throughout the day.

The provider did not routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it.

They did not ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent. For example, we identified

concerns around the monitoring of people’s emotional distress and incidents and injuries were

not always reported correctly. This meant the provider did not have effective systems in place to

enable them to monitor people’s outcomes.

The provider did not tell people about their rights around consent or respect these when

delivering care and treatment. For example, we found evidence people’s right to refuse was not

respected and they were subjected to interventions against their wishes. This went against the

principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.