Fethneys Living Options - Care Home Physical Disabilities

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 key question was last assessed in January 2019 and rated good. At this assessment, the rating has changed to requires improvement. This means 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 make sure people’s care and treatment was effective. There was no evidence to show how people newly admitted to the home were involved in the assessment of their needs or in their care planning. A relative confirmed they were involved in the initial assessment of their family member’s needs and with ongoing reviews of their care. People had a variety of communication needs and different ways of communicating. For example, 1 person communicated using Makaton, a language programme that uses signs, symbols, and speech to help people communicate, but staff had not been trained in Makaton . The person was also able to communicate using a specially adapted tablet. Processes were not sufficient to ensure people’s care and support needs were identified, assessed and documented before they came to live at the home. For example, 1 person had moved into the home in September 2024, but no care plan had been written. Staff were given information provided by the last home as part of their care plan . Daily records and monitoring charts (where required) had been completed, although there were some gaps in recording, and they were not effective in ensuring people’s assessed needs had been met, putting them at risk of unsafe care. We discussed this issue with the interim manager who agreed staff needed to be better at recording. Similarly, professionals from the local authority identified a lack of repositioning monitoring charts being completed.

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.

The provider did not always support people effectively to understand the consequences of making unwise decisions. The majority of people had capacity and understood their rights around consent to their care and treatment they were offered. For example, 2 people had refused to receive a COVID-19 jab and their decision was respected. The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations had been applied for to deprive a person of their liberty under Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Capacity assessments based on specific decisions had been completed for people. Some relatives had power of attorney over their family member’s affairs, such as for health and welfare or finances.