St Giles

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 reviewed 2 quality statements under this key question: assessing needs and consent to care and treatment. We found that people were involved in their care and their consent to receive care was sought by staff and the management team. People had their needs assessed before care commenced and were involved in how their care would be delivered. There were effective approaches to monitor people’s care and treatment and their outcomes.

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.

To ensure the service could meet their needs people were assessed prior to admission to St Giles. People considering moving into the service and their relatives were invited to visit and have a look around at the facilities on offer. The registered manager said, “It needs to be a suitable match for both the person and people already living at St Giles and it may not be suitable for everyone.”

Staff had a good understanding and knowledge of the people who lived at St Giles. They were able to tell us about the care and support they provided for people. One member of staff said, “I prompt [name of person] in a calm and polite way; to make a cup of tea and they are always involved in their care. [Name of person] does their own laundry and puts it in the washing machine. [Name of person] cooks their own food; we discuss together how they want it.”

St Giles used an electronic care plan system; each person had their own personalised support plan which was reviewed monthly or sooner if their care or support needs changed. People were assigned key workers. They met with people monthly to review their support plans and gain feedback on the standard of care they received. Where needed pictorial images were used to aid understanding of what was being asked/discussed.

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.

Staff were respectful to people and gained consent before attempting to provide support. People had capacity to make day to day decisions for themselves and staff supported them to have autonomy over their day to day lives.

Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and were able to describe how to apply it in their day-to-day practice. Comments included, “Everyone here has capacity and makes their own choices. For example, if [name of person] does not want to eat at a particular time they won’t. We advise them and they will call when they are ready to eat.” And “I ask people their choices, it is what they want? Everything is in their support plan. A person I support who has a hearing impairment can speak some words, I have learnt to read their body language, I sit and wait and in time they will get out what they want to say. I also show them different choices, so they can choose.”

Whilst people had capacity for day-to-day decision making, the provider was responsive in seeking additional support in the person's best interest if more complex decision making was required.