Malsis Hall - Mental Health Care Home with Nursing

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 remained requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 62 (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 always make sure people’s care and treatment was effective because not everyone had the same quality of care plans and risk assessments.

People did not always have their needs assessed to a high quality. Some people had person centred, up to date and detailed care plans which made it clear what support the person needed. However, not everyone had this same level of detail. Staff found the care plans to be of good quality. One member of staff told us, “The care plans are really good. They tell me what I need to know.”

The provider 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.

People received care in line with best practice principles. The provider used nationally recognised approaches and templates to assess, manage and promote independence of people using the service.

The provider 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 knew people and their needs well. The provider had recruited a stable staff team which reduced the need for agency staff. This positively impacted people as staff knew them well, their triggers and needs. Staff worked effectively with partner organisations such as the ambulance service, police and the GP to make sure people received the right support. One visiting professional told us, “I don’t come here that much, but it is always okay. I am not worried.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were supported to live healthy lives. Staff knew people well and the areas people needed support to ensure they maximised their wellbeing. For example, one person needed support to manage their dietary intake, so measures were put in place to support this. Catering staff knew people’s dietary needs and food preferences well in order to provide a balanced diet. One person told us, “We have food in shelves in the kitchen. I have my own drinks, so I am okay.”

The provider monitored people’s care and treatment to stive to continuously improve it. However, records did not always clearly document whether people’s outcomes were met in a consistent way.

People’s goals and outcomes were not consistently recorded. While staff knew people well including their achievements, goals and aspirations, this was not always recorded and improvements documented. While people told us they improved and developed with their treatment, this was not always evidenced in care plans.

The provider did not reliably seek consent from people and maintain records required under the Mental Capacity Act.

People did not have written consent or a record highlighting people had given verbal consent for their care and treatment within their care plans. However, we found improvements since our last inspection. We found people gave verbal consent and those who needed supervision and restrictions under the Mental Health Act or Mental Capacity Act had the necessary authorisations in place. We found those people who were unable to make their own decisions had decision specific mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions in place.