St Oggs

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.  At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained as requires improve. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to consent to care and treatment.

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 service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People told us they were involved in planning their care and that it was individual to them. We observed keyworkers reviewing care records during the assessment.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. However, we found they did not always do this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. For example, the service had not always followed the principals of the MCA or DoLS to ensure people’s rights were protected.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.  People told us that staff knew them well. We saw staff supported people with external health care appointments and ensured they had information with them, such as, hospital passports to enable a safer transition.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service offered supported to people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. People told us staff at the service had ‘not given up on them’ and had worked to ensure they were supported to ensure they were able to maintain their placement without having to return to acute mental health services.

The service monitored people’s care and treatment. They supported people to have outcomes that were positive. People told us staff supported them to access support such as, classes at a local collage. Two people told us their experiences at this service was much better than at other services and this had led to an improvement in their mental health. One person said this had led to improvements with their friends and family.

The service did not tell people about their rights around consent or respect these when delivering care and treatment.  Most people at the service had capacity and were treated as such. However, when the service supported people who lacked capacity to make decisions for themselves, they did not do this in line with best practice. For example, when a healthcare professional visited the service to support people with identifying their views on receiving hospital treatment and their views on being resuscitated should there be a need; the service did not advocate for a person who lacked capacity to make this decision. This led to the visiting healthcare professional making decisions on the person’s behalf and not following the Mental Capacity Act. This had gone unchallenged by the service.