The Paddocks

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

We assessed all six quality statements in this key question; 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 and consent to care and treatment. We found people’s care, treatment and support now achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life. People’s needs and choices were assessed and considered peoples diverse needs and preferences. People were now supported in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the need for consent and supporting people to make decisions about their care. Staff and teams worked closely to ensure timely and effective care.

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.

One relative confirmed the manager had completed an assessment of their relative’s needs and had gone through the care plan with them.

Leaders said there was now an in-depth admissions assessment in place to assess potential new service users. Staff were aware of the actions to take in the event of a person’s needs changing. One staff member said they were familiar with how a person presents and communicates their needs, the staff member said they would report any changes to the registered manager, and they would make a referral to the relevant health professional.

Processes were now in place for assessing people’s needs including consideration of personal preferences. There were systems for referrals to be made to health professionals in the event of a change in need. The registered manager had oversight of people’s needs and had raised health referrals where appropriate.

We did not receive any specific feedback from people for this evidence category. We used our professional judgement to calculate the score.

Staff confirmed their awareness of how people required support with their meals in line with their eating and drinking guidelines. Staff confirmed their awareness of pressure ulcer risks. The registered manager said they completed observations of staff practice to ensure staff were supporting people in line with best practice.

There were systems to support the delivery of evidence-based practice. The service used tools to support their assessment of people’s needs; for example, the service used the ‘Waterlow risk assessment’, a tool used to calculate the risk of a person developing pressure ulcers or sores. There was a system to ensure staff were aware of Speech and Language Therapist (SALT) eating and drinking guidance. Staff had received training around skin integrity, dysphagia, epilepsy and diabetes to ensure people were supported in line with best practice.

Relatives said the service worked well with health professionals. One relative said, “I think the home works well with other health professionals, a recent example of this is [relative] needed to visit [their GP] and agreed to be driven to the GP’s practice, however upon arrival [relative] refused to get out of the car and the GP decided to meet with [relative] in the car rather than reschedule which I thought was great.”

Staff confirmed how they work in partnership with health professionals including the GP and dentist to ensure people got appropriate health treatment. One staff member said the health professionals were very responsive to requests from the service about people.

One partner said, “the home has a good relationship with visiting health professionals”.

Processes were in place to ensure the service worked effectively with other teams. For example, how people’s information was shared with others and a procedure for family and friends to be involved in daily care. The registered manager had oversight of people's information and made referrals to health professionals when necessary. Health information was updated following appointments and staff were made aware of any updates.

One relative said the home was supporting their relative with their mobility. For example, taking their relative swimming, however they told us they would like their relative to go swimming more often to help with their mobility. The registered manager said they had already made a referral to the Continuing Health Criteria (CHC) to support the funding for this request.

The registered manager said they ensured they had oversight of people’s health and wellbeing from working regularly in the service, speaking with people, staff and relatives. The registered manager and staff confirmed how they helped people to make healthy lifestyle choices; for example, staff said people were offered healthier food choices and encouraged to go for a walk or swimming. One staff member said, “We encourage people to help make their bed, go for a short walk or do fun things like play musical chairs.”

There were processes to support people to live healthier lives. For example, staff had received training around diet and nutrition in line with the organisation’s training requirements. People had received annual health checks with their GP and specific health care plans were in place to meet people's health needs. For example, diabetes care plan and eating and drinking guidance.

One relative said the service arranged meetings with relatives and social workers where they discussed things like holidays and what has gone well.

The registered manager said they monitored and improved outcomes through regular monitoring of people’s care plans, risk assessments and feedback from service users, residents and staff. People’s outcomes were discussed and agreed with people and their relatives and recorded in the ‘ambitions and goals’ section of people’s care plans. Staff were made aware of people’s outcomes in staff meetings. The registered manager and staff said they were proud of the achievements people had made. For example, one person was now feeling more confident and was now attending events outside of the home and another person had gone on their first holiday since living in the service.

There were processes to record and monitor outcomes; for example, care plans and risk assessments were reviewed and updated. Agreed outcomes were recorded in people’s care plans and effective action plans were made from people’s feedback.

Relatives said they were involved in decisions made with or for their relative. People’s advocate said, “The home enables me to look at Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) /Best Interest assessments and talk to me.”

The registered manager said they discussed any new restrictions which had been agreed in a person’s Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS)with staff. The registered manager said they involved people and relatives in decisions.

Processes were now in place to ensure people, and their relatives or advocates were involved in decisions about their lives and records of decisions were recorded throughout people’s care plans. The registered manager now had a process to ensure people’s DoLS documentation was current. Staff and leaders were aware of the legal responsibilities in relation to care. For example, the registered manager and staff had completed MCA and DoLS training in line with the organisation’s training requirements.