Lound Hall

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's needs and choices were assessed. We saw detailed assessments including nationally recognised tools to assess risk. This meant staff had detailed information to support people, which meant people’s care and treatment were effective in line with best practice standards. Assessments were reviewed regularly, and care plans were kept up to date. People had their capacity to make decisions assessed and this was reviewed regularly in line with the Mental Capacity Act. We found that management and staff demonstrated a good understanding of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act. There were processes in place to inform people about their rights in relation to consent and capacity. People were involved in their care planning and guidance and training was provided for staff regarding consent to care.

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 regularly, and people were involved in their care planning and review; this meant people’s needs were continually assessed to ensure peoples’ individual needs were met. People’s communication needs were also assessed to ensure they received the most appropriate support. For example, one person spoke a different language and staff used an online translator to communicate with them effectively.

Processes were in place to assess people’s needs. Where required, the service used nationally recognised tools to assess risk. For example, the service used the malnutrition universal screening tool (MUST) to assess people’s risk of malnutrition. External healthcare professionals were involved in people’s care and these assessments were used to assess need and formulate people’s care plans. People's care plans were person-centred and reflected their current support needs. Care plans were regularly reviewed. Assessments from health care professionals and the views of the people using the service were used to plan effective care.

Staff understood people’s specific needs and how to support them to achieve their preferred outcomes.

Staff understood how to deliver evidence-based care and treatment. Staff understood what was important to people and treated people in line with best practice standards. For example, one staff member told us about a person on a modified diet, which differed with various food types. Levels were clearly detailed in the person’s care plan and accessible to staff in the kitchen to ensure this person’s food was made appropriately in line with national guidelines.

Processes were in place to deliver evidence-based care and treatment. The electronic care plan system used allowed staff to monitor people’s needs, for example, people’s weights and risks of falls were updated to inform of people’s care and treatment needs where required.

People received care, treatment and support that was evidence-based and in line with good practice standards. People told us their care and treatment were good and staff were kept up to date with how to practise evidence-based good practice by having access to updated information about people’s needs.

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 understood the importance of ensuring that people fully understood what they were consenting to and the importance of obtaining consent before they delivered care or treatment. Where a person found it difficult to make decisions, the service had followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, by documenting the person’s ability to make a decision (by use of a mental capacity assessment) and then planning what would be in the person’s best interests. Staff supported people in line with people’s choices. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to consent and capacity. One staff member told us, “I aways presume capacity unless proven otherwise and also ensure decisions are for their best interest”. Another staff member told us, "[Person], likes to stay in their bedroom for their meals, and that's okay, it’s their choice”.

Processes were in place to support people to make their own decisions. For example, material received from the opticians was used for people who needed support with reading information about their care. The service involved people’s relatives or paid advocates to support them where possible. The use of advocates was clearly recorded, which meant staff were aware when a person received advocacy support.

People told us that staff supported them to make their own decisions and plan their own routines. One person told us, "I get up when I want to and go to bed when I want to and being 90 years of age makes no difference it is my decision.” People told us that staff gave them privacy and always asked for consent.