Homeleigh

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

Care plans had improved since the last inspection. They were organised, easy to follow, reflected people’s assessed needs and they were person centred. People had monthly reviews and goals were set. People’s communication needs were assessed and understood by staff. People were supported to access healthcare when needed. We saw people had health action plans and staff requested reasonable adjustments, for example, where required to access healthcare appointments. Staff reported good relationships with other health and social care professionals involved in people’s care and people told us staff teams worked well together. We received mixed feedback from 2 health and social care professionals. They told us, ‘They appear to care for their service users, they are proactive in arranging appointments and seeking advice’ and ‘My impression of the care provided is that they seem to stick to what they know and are used to.’

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 told us they had access to their care plans and they were positive about the care they received. They confirmed they were prompted or supported to attend health and social care related appointments.

Staff confirmed people's care needs were accurately reflected in their care plans. Senior management confirmed additional support had been provided since the last inspection to ensure the care plans were regularly updated and were person centred.

Processes were in place to assess people’s needs prior to any move to the home. Risk assessments and care plans were reviewed regularly. We reviewed all the care plans. They had significantly improved since the last inspection. They were well organised, easy to follow and reflected people’s assessed needs. Information was very personalised and reflected the persons wishes and preferences. People had monthly reviews and goals were set.

We did not speak to people or their families about evidenced based care and treatment. No surveys had been completed by the provider to collect this information.

Senior management outlined the induction and training and the support from specialists employed by the provider to ensure staff were supported to understand required standards.

IT systems ensured staff were up to date with national legislation, evidence-based good practice and required standards. This was achieved through live updates to staff electronic handsets/mobile phones. These updates were complimented by relevant training.

People were positive about staff and how they worked closely with other professionals. They told us, 'They work together quite nicely’ and ‘I think they do. When I needed a nurse, they make an appointment. They call the GP if I need it.'

Staff told us the team culture had improved and they were clearer about their roles and tasks. They told us they worked well with other professionals to ensure people received the care and support they needed.

We received positive feedback about how staff worked with other health and social care professionals. One told us, ‘They appear to care for their service users, they are proactive in arranging appointments and seeking advice.’

We saw evidence of multidisciplinary meetings where people, families, staff and external professionals were working in partnership.

People told us they were supported to live healthier lives and staff supported them to attend health appointments. We saw a survey carried out one to one by staff with one resident in May 2024. The resident confirmed they were supported with both their physical and mental health.

Staff confirmed people had access to healthcare and reasonable adjustments were requested when required to support their access.

We reviewed 3 care plans to assess people’s access to healthcare. All 3 were supported appropriately. Each had a health action plan, annual health checks and access to other health professionals as required. The care plans included a focus on diet and physical activity. Health passports were also in place.

People were supported to set goals. People told us, ‘Yes, they always talk about goals’ and ‘They can do, yes, they do. Mine is making food and education.'

The registered manager explained a care plan tool, coproduced with people, was used monthly to review people’s goals and progress in meeting them. This had been implemented successfully since the last inspection. The regional manager was a visible presence in the home and often went out with people in the community so they could see risk plans working in practice. Some people required 2-1 support in the community and had plans in place to manage difficult situations that could arise. This provided good oversight of peoples care plans.

We reviewed 3 care plans and people had clear goals and regular involvement in their care.

We observed staff seeking consent throughout the inspection. We spoke to two people and asked them if staff asked for consent before they provided support. One answered, ‘yes’ and the second said, ‘sometimes’, as they explained staff would sometimes enter their room without knocking.

We spoke to 4 staff and they all understood consent and capacity. They were all able to give examples when people could make their own decisions and examples where best interest decisions were required.

The information in care plans was clear and supported compliance with the MCA. Staff were trained and a comprehensive policy was available to support staff.