Lowdell Close

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. This is the first inspection for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

People’s needs were regularly assessed and care plans reflected these. People had lived at the service for a long time; however, the provider had regularly reviewed their planned care to make sure this remained appropriate and met their changing needs.

People living at the service had a variety of healthcare conditions and limited mobility. The provider worked closely with others to assess, monitor and meet people’s needs. This included the staff advocating for people to help make sure they received good quality care and support from other services.

The staff regularly monitored people’s needs to make sure they were safe, healthy and happy.

The staff offered people choices and gained consent when possible. People lacked the mental capacity to make some decisions. The provider had liaised with their families, legal representatives and others to help make sure decisions were made in their best interests.

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’s needs were assessed and planned for. The staff had reassessed people’s needs on a regular basis and following changes in these needs. For example, when people had returned home following hospital admissions and when their health conditions changed. Care plans were clear, relevant and person-centred. They gave staff the information they needed to provide safe and appropriate care. The registered manager had also created shortened versions of assessments and plans which explained how the person communicated and any special requirements they had. All staff were asked to confirm they had read and understood these. People’s relatives told us they had been consulted and were able to contribute their views.

People received evidence-based care. The staff had undertaken training about learning disabilities. They understood the principles of personalised care and support. The registered manager had arranged for staff to undertake additional training to enhance their knowledge further. The staff worked with other professionals to understand about people’s individual needs, for example how best to support them with continence, communication and eating and drinking. There were clear guidelines from external professionals which included links to best practice. These had been incorporated into care plans.

People were supported to have a choice of freshly prepared meals. These were nutritious and varied. Some people required food to be prepared in a certain way or at specific consistencies. The staff knew how to do this and made sure people received the right support.

There were effective systems for the staff to work together and to work with other teams. Staff on duty explained they held handovers of information, communication systems and regular meetings where they shared updates about the people they supported and the service. The staff also made timely referrals and liaised with other professionals when needed. The service was supported by a care home matron, who was visiting on the day of our assessment. They told us the staff identified changes in people’s condition and alerted them. They told us they had regular communication with each other and the staff followed their guidance and advice.

People were supported with their healthcare needs. There was information about their healthcare conditions and risks associated with these. An external professional told us, “The staff know the soft signs of illness or infection and are proactive in asking for help.’’ People had regular appointments with the health care professionals involved in supporting them. Information from other professionals had been incorporated into care plans.

The staff monitored people’s health, wellbeing and outcomes. They kept records of people’s care, monitored healthcare conditions and adverse events, such as seizures. They used this information to help inform reviews of their care and plan for their future.

The staff obtained consent when possible. They offered people choices in a way they could understand, using a variety of communication styles. They respected people’s choices. None of the people living at the service could consent to complex decisions about their care, health or accommodation. The provider had made best interest decisions on their behalf in consultation with people’s representatives, including families, advocates and professionals involved in their care. The provider had obtained information about people’s legal representatives and made sure they were consulted. Some people received support from advocacy services. This helped to ensure they had an independent representative when decisions were made.