SeeAbility - Applewood Residential Home

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 had the best possible outcomes because their needs were assessed, staff understood their support needs. Their care, support and treatment reflected these needs and any protected equality characteristics. The service worked in harmony with people at the centre of their care. People were enabled and encouraged to make their own choices. People were supported to live independently. People were supported within the service and within the community to achieve their goals and aspirations.

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 before they moved to the service and their assessments were reviewed and updated when their needs changed. A relative said, “They understand his needs.” Another relative told us that staff have adapted to and coped with their loved one’s changing needs.

Assessments were in place detailing people’s care and support needs. However, some had not been reviewed for over 2 years. The manager was aware of this and was in the process of updating these. There was no evidence of any harm to people as staff knew people well and new staff and agency spent time shadowing experienced staff.

People received their care and support from staff who understood their changing needs. There were communication systems and processes to enable staff to understand any changes to people’s needs. A member of staff told us, “Any changes are communicated to us all through emails, so we are all kept in the loop even when we are away on holiday. We have general handovers which are run by the shift leader and we put important information on a handover sheet.”

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.

People were supported to live as independently as they could be. People were supported within the service and within the community to achieve their goals and aspirations. People’s support plans showed that people were supported to maintain relationships with their families, friends and loved ones. A person told us, “I like to do washing and cooking.”

Staff told us they supported people in the service and in the community. We observed staff supporting people according to their wants, needs and wishes. A staff member explained they supported people in different ways according to their needs. They detailed that 1 person was not able to express their wants and needs verbally but were able to do this with their body language. This helped staff to understand their wishes and encourage independence. They said they gave, “People time to complete tasks and encourage them. Sometimes it works.”

There were assessments in place to detail how to support people within their home and their community to achieve their goals and aspirations. These assessments included details of how to communicate effectively. However, some had not been reviewed for over 2 years. The manager was aware of this and was in the process of updating these. There was no evidence of any harm to people as staff knew people well and new staff and agency spent time shadowing experienced staff.

People had decision specific capacity assessments, these had been reviewed and reassessed frequently. Best interest decisions were made where people lacked the capacity to make their own decisions. These were supported by family members, advocates and professionals.

Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). A Staff member said, “We have 2 DoLS but most have capacity to make day to day decisions.” They explained that best interest’s meetings took place when a person lacked capacity to make a decision and these meetings included people, staff and advocates.

People were enabled and encouraged to make their own choices. People’s care plans and assessments evidenced this. A person told us, “I can decide” when asked who makes decisions. A relative said, “Staff understand consent. [Person’s] needs are maybe less than some of the others but they will ask him.”