ELY DIOCESAN ASSOCIATION FOR DEAF PEOPLE (Cambridgeshire Deaf Association)

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 care plans were mostly reflective of their needs. Where an area for improvement was identified, the registered manager acted promptly. People’s needs and rights were supported by staff, and they were aware of their rights around care and treatment. People’s care and treatment was effective. People’s communication needs, support requirements, and wellbeing was reviewed with them. Staff knew the people they supported well, had completed mental capacity act training, and knew of consent requirements.

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.

People were involved in planning their care. People told us staff reviewed their needs regularly with them. For example, 1 person told us, “Things have improved for me with support. Staff always come to me at the right time.” People told us they were able to set their own goals, which staff helped them with. This included personal care and domestic tasks and financial and health goals. People had access to their care plans. Differing communication applications were used, dependent upon their individual needs. All the people we spoke to told us of their needs, and staff would communicate with them in person, using British Sign Language, or would record video’s using this method. Furthermore, video calls and text exchange were also used.

Staff knew people and their needs well. Staff knew how to access care records and the communication systems which were in place. Staff continually reviewed and assessed people’s needs, and we saw evidence of how this progressed to specific specialist referrals, such as specialist nursing teams when people needed this specialist support. Staff told us they could update care plans as needed, and there was a formal care plan review schedule in place for each person.

During the assessment we found specific areas could be improved. For example, 1 person did not have a specific diabetes care plan to identify their support needs. The registered manager took immediate action to implement these in line with the providers policies and procedures. However, care plans, overall, did identify people’s needs. An electronic care planning system, and an electronic communication system was used. This helped to ensure both the needs of people, and the communication needs of staff were met. Care plans were in text format, as well as being supported by bespoke videos to support the use of British Sign Language.

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 told us they felt respected, staff communicated effectively and gained consent before providing support to them. One person told us, “Staff will let themselves in [to my home], when they arrive. This has been agreed.” And “I can tell staff I want privacy, and I will get it.” A further person told us, “Staff leave me [alone] when I want [them to].”

Staff understood how to apply the principles of the mental capacity act and ensured consent to care was always sought. A staff member told us, “[Person] makes [their] own decisions and has capacity to do that.” They further told us of the specific individualised communication support the person needed, and we found this was reflected in the persons care plan. The provider had an independent advocacy service available for people. This ensured people had support and assistance outside of their usual staff team, should they require it. Additionally, external advocacy services were available, and arranged for people, where required. This included for medical and social appointments.

People’s rights were respected, and staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The MCA provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. When people receive care and treatment in their homes an application must be made to the Court of Protection for them to authorise people to be deprived of their liberty. At the time of this assessment no person lacked capacity to make decisions. Independent advocacy services were available and organised when required. People’s mental capacity was assessed in line with the MCA.