Balby

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 had their needs assessed and care plans were robust and contained information about peoples wishes and preferences. However, we could not be assured staff always followed people care plans, due to the concerns we identified during our inspection. It was not evidenced staff had always worked in partnership with external agencies, to ensure people received effective care and support. People had their capacity assessed and where able, people had consented to their care.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People had their needs assessed. Relatives told us they were involved in planning peoples care, one relative said, “I have seen the care plans, there are risk assessments in place for every situation.”

Staff told us they had access to people’s care records via online systems and could record people’s care on handheld devices.

Online care planning systems were in place and care plans were robust and included people's needs and preferences, for example, one person’s care plan detailed activities they like to do, such as going to a café and another person’s care plan contained details about how they like to communicate, including how they let staff know they want to be left alone. Care records were in place to guide staff about how to deal with behaviours of distress, this included people triggers and calming techniques.

Where people required external health professionals for ongoing monitoring, this was in place. For example, 1 person had a detailed epilepsy care plan, staff were trained to administer rescue medication and this person received regular input from epilepsy specialists.

Staff we spoke with did not raise any concerns about people receiving care and treatment. One staff said, “I don’t have any issues to raise, it has always been a lovely place to work.”

Whilst care records were robust and covered details of people's needs, we could not be assured staff had always followed peoples care plans, due to the concerns identified in the safe section of this report. The provider had taken action to address these concerns, and was working to embed systems within the service, particularly with new staff members.

We received mixed feedback from relatives about how the service worked in partnership with them and others. One relative said, “I was told [name] needed a new bed, but I haven’t heard anything since. Another relative said, “They keep me informed about anything that changes.” Whilst another relative said, “[Name] needs a social worker, but they haven’t got one.”

At the time of our inspection staff told us the team was unsettled. One staff said, “Everyone’s feeling on edge and worried. New agency staff in place which has been strange as we are used to regular staff.”

Partners told us they had visited the service to undertake well-being checks, they told us staff had worked with them and provided them with information they required.

The provider had not recognised shortfalls within the staff team and how they worked in partnership with others. However, once this was identified the provider took immediate steps to ensure people received medical attention and staff who supported people were safe to do so.

People told us they enjoyed their meals and could choose what they would like to eat. People were offered a varied diet and including fresh fruits and vegetables. One person told us, “I absolutely love my meals.” And another person said, “The food is nice, if I fancy something else, staff help me make it.”

Staff told us they supported people to be active. One staff told us they supported a person to access the gym and another person to attend dance classes.

Records evidenced people received ongoing health monitoring. People were supported to have an annual health review, and people had dental and opticians’ input.

Service user guides were in place for people. Some people had a good experience of living at the service and told us they enjoyed being there. One person told us they attended football practice, and another told us they enjoyed going dancing. One person said, “I went to football practice last night, I love football, I play FIFA on the PlayStation too.”

Staff told us people were supported to do a range of activities and community inclusion. One staff said, “People go out a lot. [Name] likes to go to the pictures and [name] does taekwondo.”

Care plans contained details about people’s goals and how to achieve good outcomes for them, for example one person’s care record detailed how staff support them to use public transport. Another person had risk assessments in place, to enable them to access the community independently.

People had their capacity assessed, this included for specific decisions, such as having a monitor in their rooms for safety.

Staff were trained in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). Staff we spoke with told us they understood their responsibilities to gain consent from people. One staff said, “We ask people what they want, they will give us either verbal or non-verbal answers, we know people's communication and understand their signs.”

Systems were in place to ensure people had their capacity assessed and where required, people had Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) in place.