Connect House

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 care needs were assessed using national tools to ensure people received care that was effective to their health, care and well-being needs. People’s care plans were kept up to date with any assessments completed in a timely manner. Mental capacity assessment had been completed when they deemed a person to lack capacity. However, they did not meet the key principles required to prove someone lacked capacity. People were not always involved in assessing their needs to ensure their rights were supported.

This service scored 58 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us they were not always involved in assessing their needs. Comments included, “I’m not aware of being involved with any planning or notes since coming in here.” “I don’t know about my care plan, and I’d remember if so.” This meant people were not always involved in assessing their needs to ensure their views and comments were obtained.

Staff told us people’s need were assessed appropriately, and these were regularly reviewed. A staff member told us, “People’s needs are assessed during their admission process to ensure we know what support needs they need.” The deputy manager told us people's needs and abilities were assessed during the pre-admission process.

The provider used a range of national assessment tools to assess, understand people’s needs and how best to support them. For example, staff had completed Braden scale tool to assess skin integrity risks and Malnutrition Universal Screening (MUST) tool to assess risks of malnutrition.

People were encouraged by staff to ensure their needs were met regarding nutrition and hydration in line with current guidance. One person told us, “I have a jug of water in my room, and we get the tea trolley a couple of times in the day and squash with lunch, so we do ok.” Another person told us, “They nag me to drink so I always have a drink on the go from the tea trolley, squash with meals and my water jug.”

Staff were knowledgeable about people's needs including their fluid and nutritional requirements. A staff member told us, “PCS (electronic care planning system) will alert us if someone hasn’t had enough to drink, we then know we need to encourage more and flag it up to senior staff.” The deputy manager told us they had ensured that people’s care records and risk assessments met nationally recognised guidelines and best practices. This included tools to monitor people’s food and fluid intake.

The provider had processes in place to ensure people were supported in line with evidence-based practice. These were evidenced through people’s care plans, monitoring charts, training, and daily note records. People had their nutrition and hydration monitored, this meant there was a process in place to ensure risks could be identified.

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 told us they were not involved in their care planning. This meant staff could not be assured people had consented to the care and support. We received mixed feedback from people in relation to staff obtaining consent before supporting people. One person told us, “I don’t get involved in how they do things, they just get on with any care for me.”

The management and staff team had good knowledge regarding consent to care and how to apply the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. Staff explained the importance of obtaining consent from people. However, peoples feedback and records demonstrated this was not always put into practice.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. Mental capacity assessment had been completed when staff deemed a person to lack capacity. However, they did not meet the key principles required to prove someone lacks capacity. For example, assessments did not include what information had been provided to the person for them to understand the decision that was needed to be made and people who were important to the person and relevant professionals were not always involved. This meant people were at risk of being deemed to lack capacity unlawfully and best interest decision made without the relevant people involved. The home used CCTV in communal areas. The provider could not demonstrate if consent had been obtained for the surveillance. Where people may be deemed to lack capacity to consent, we were not assured a mental capacity assessment had been completed. The provider had processes such as a Mental Capacity policy and this provided guidance for staff to follow. Staff had completed Mental Capacity training.