Bobbins

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 were being offered choice during the assessment. Staff had mixed abilities on how they communicated choices to people. The service did not have effective systems to demonstrate they used the least restrictive options. We raised our concerns with the provider and between the two site visits staff were provided with additional training. This in turn had started to shift the culture of following least restrictive options. People’s experience was improved as a result.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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.

People were having a mixed experience of being asked for the consent prior to care being delivered or choices made. Staff were not using alternative communication systems to involve people in consenting to their care. However, relatives had been consulted for some important decisions being made where people lacked capacity. They were unable to say whether choice was offered when they were not there.

Staff had not received adequate training to ensure decisions were made in line with current legislation. This meant they were struggling to deliver care in line with people’s needs and wishes. We raised our concerns with the provider and between the two site visits additional training was delivered for staff. During the second site visit, the kitchen was left unlocked for longer periods of time. This demonstrated staff started to understand the need to use the least restrictive approach.

Systems recorded decisions being made for those he had limited or no capacity. Although, systems were not always effective in demonstrating the least restrictive option had been picked and why other options had been disregarded. However, during the assessment improvements started to be made including ensuring staff had a better understanding around capacity and consent and recording restrictions. The provider updated us following the visits since one person had moved out, all locks were removed from the kitchen door.